How Humans Affect the Planet: 2012

Sunday, June 17, 2012

What is the best way to produce electricity?

We have gotten used to relying on electricity to always be there. We count on it to power our entire world. Whether its a light bulb or a computer, its hard to imagine life without it. Just think about how you are restricted during a power outage, weather at work or at home. In fact, we rely on it enough for each person on average to consume 2,881 kilowatt hours every year. That`s enough to power over 28,000 average light bulbs for an hour. If you live in a developed country that number is 3 to 10 times greater. There are many ways to produce all that energy and each solution has its own advantages and disadvantages. The main ways we are making electricity right now definitely have the latter.

The electricity industry, because of the ways it produces energy, is by far the largest contributor to human-made greenhouse gasses emissions every year. The pollution from the industry exceeds 10 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. We can`t afford to keep these numbers up without serious consequences to the planet and us as a species. The solution is a greener way to produce electricity. These solutions already exist in the form of renewable energy, we just haven`t fully committed to them yet

Fossil Fuels

Our main source of electricity comes from fossil fuels. This includes coal and natural gas. These fossil fuels are the reason that the electricity industry is the largest polluter in the world. In order to transform these nonrenewable fuels into electricity, you need to commit to a lot of pollution. Also, these resources won`t last very long. It might be decades or centuries before they run out, but when they do, we are going to need another solution. If we continue to pollute like this, that solution might have to be moving to a new planet.

Coal Power Plants

From: solarfeeds.com

Coal is the most used fuel for the generation of power. It is used to make 40% of the world`s total electricity, but the reason that its used is not because its clean. Coal is one of the worst polluters out there. It is responsible for the largest part of human-made increase to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It emits way more pollution than oil, natural gas, and any other resource that you can think of. The main reason that coal is used so often is because it is found almost anywhere. It is mined in over 100 countries on 6 different continents and there still is over 860,000 million recoverable tons of it left. Coal is priced at $60.90 USD per 1 ton.

Natural Gas Power Plants

From: consumerenergyreport.com

Natural gas is a substance that is mainly used for electricity and heating. It can be found underground close to a coal or oil reserves. For it to be able to create electricity, unlike coal, it has to be processed. Processing the gas has many by-products including carbon dioxide. Although it still pollutes, it is a lot cleaner than coal. There is about 180 trillion cubic meters of recoverable gas left underground. The issue is that a lot of it is located in unstable regions unlike coal, which is found mainly in stable places. The cost of natural gas is $2.47 USD per 1 million British thermal units (BTU).

Nuclear

A significant portion of our electricity comes from nuclear power. It is a better solution to producing energy because it doesn`t pollute the air as much as fossil fuels do. There are some downsides to going nuclear though. Nuclear technology produces a very dangerous waste that needs to be sealed and kept in storage. It can be disastrous if it leaks out. Also, reactors, the main part of nuclear power plants, are very dangerous if something goes wrong. Another negative thing about nuclear power is that it can also be used to manufacture weapons that are capable of destroying entire cities.

Nuclear Power Plants

From: wikipedia.org

Nuclear power plants use nuclear fission to produce electricity and heat. They provide between 13 and 14% of the world`s electricity. Nuclear technology is also used to propel ships and rockets sent into space. The fuel for nuclear plants is uranium. There is over 5,000,000 tons of it still left underground at a price of $50.75 USD per pound. A big reason why nuclear power is less polluting is because the uranium it needs has lower processing emissions. There are nuclear power plants in 31 countries across the planet despite the risk of a disaster if something goes wrong. The last time something like that happened was in 2011 at a plant based in Japan. Because of the incident, many countries are banning or reconsidering using nuclear power.

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy is a greener way to produce electricity. The problem is that there is many forms of it available. Some are more reliable than others but they all have something in common. They all significantly reduce greenhouse gasses emissions. The main problem is that they are not constant for very long. For example, the sun doesn`t always shine and wind speeds constantly change. It would be difficult to rely completely on renewable energy but studies show that it is possible if you combine the different types.

Wind Farms

From: renewablepowernews.com

A wind farm uses the natural power of the wind to rotate giant blades attached to wind turbines to generate electricity. A wind farm is typically a large area with hundreds of turbines connected together. Each turbine costs about $3.5 million. The space between the turbines is usually used for agriculture but wind farms can also be built offshore where no real space is taken up. The great thing about this technology is that no greenhouse gasses are emitted during operation. Wind farms sound like a great alternative to fossil fuels but the downside to them is that they are not very reliable short term because of the wind always changing.

Solar Power Plants

From: wikipedia.org

Solar power plants use hundreds or sometimes thousands of solar panels that capture and convert the sun`s energy into electricity. They are a good option because most power plants use panels that can rotate and track the sun`s movement to produce electricity all day. The largest of these plants are in the US and Spain. Many individuals also use solar panels on a smaller scale to power their own homes. The main benefit of solar power is that it doesn`t produce greenhouse gasses. The only setback is that this technology is not as reliable as fossil fuel and nuclear plants because the sun`s energy is not constant. Also, you can`t use solar power to generate electricity at night.

Geothermal Power Plants

From: esmap.org

Although there are many different kinds of geothermal power plants, they all use the natural heat found under the Earth`s crust to generate electricity or heat. They are usually built where the crust is thinner for easier access to the heat. Geothermal electricity is used in 24 countries on 6 different continents. A big benefit of this technology is very low carbon dioxide emissions. Geothermal plants produce only about 1/8th of the CO2 that coal power plants produce.

Hydro Power Plants

From: cairiconstruction.com

Hydro power is the most common form of renewable energy. It generates 16% of the world's total electricity. There are many different types of hydro power plants including dams and underground complexes but they all generate power using the force of falling or flowing water. The amount of electricity produced at a hydro plant is flexible. The energy produced also comes at a low cost and produces no direct greenhouse gasses. These are the reasons that hydro power plants exist in over 150 countries worldwide. The only obvious downside to hydro technology is that it requires structures like dams which have the potential to harm ecosystems.

If you look at the chart above, you can see that renewable energy is a realistic option. It is economically justified and in most cases even better than other options. Power plants fueled by renewable energy do cost more to build than plants fueled by fossil fuels, but are fossil fuels a good idea? I think that the pollution they put out every year is way too much for the cost of the electricity that they produce. We should turn away from these sources of power and towards either nuclear or renewable energy.

There are some issues with going nuclear though. Nuclear power plants cost a lot more to build and the cost for the electricity that they produce is higher. Also, they might not directly pollute the air but that doesn't mean that they are a good option for the environment. Unlike renewable energy, nuclear power plants require fuel to produce electricity. The uranium that they need has to be mined and transported to the plants which produces a lot of pollution. Nuclear plants also produce a very dangerous waste that is hard to dispose of and has to be stored with the risk of a disastrous leak.

Renewable energy has to be the best way to produce electricity. The concept is relatively new and is already competing with proven ways of producing power like coal and natural gas. The competition is going to get even fiercer over time as research and improvements to renewable energy will inevitably come. The cost of building and producing green energy have been declining and the emissions from it have stayed at zero. If this keeps happening, hopefully renewable energy will eventually be responsible for 100% of the electricity that we produce and consume.

If you would like to see what professionals in the field think, you should watch the video below. It features Stewart Brand and Mark Z. Jacobson debating about if what the world needs is nuclear power or renewable energy.

References:

Friday, April 13, 2012

Greener Olympics

In February 2010 Canada hosted the world's biggest winter event. The Winter Olympics. The monstrous job was given to Canada's third largest city, Vancouver and the VANOC organizing committee. Winter is a giant part of Canadian culture and tourism. It is estimated that Canada's winter tourism industry makes 5 billion dollars every year. Currently, winter and its activities are only possible because of the temperature. If we don't make some drastic changes, with in the next 50 years the global average temperature is estimated to rise by 2°C. With this very high temperature we can expect the winter season too be a lot shorter and the activities that come with it to start disappearing. This will affect Canada's tourism but it will affect the people and animals inhabiting Canada and the world even more.

When the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) found out that the Winter Olympics will be held in Canada, they saw it as a great way to push everyone to reduce their emissions and ultimately become carbon neutral. The DSF contacted VANOC, the Vancouver Winter Olympics and Paralympics organizing committee, and pushed them to set themselves goals (emissions, public awareness, etc). The DSF also received help from over 70 Winter Olympic athletes who were also learning how to reduce their carbon footprint in order to protect the sports they dedicate a large part of their lives to. Thousands of Canadians also signed a petition to make the games greener for the environment.

VANOC responded to the challenge that would affect the way the games and the hosts would be remembered in the future by setting themselves goals and targets like they were pushed to by the DSF and many other individuals. They aimed to be as close to zero emissions as possible. Also, they planned to offset the emissions that they couldn't avoid by investing in renewable energy and energy efficient projects in order to balance their total Olympic related emissions at zero. Another big thing that VANOC said they would do is try to increase public awareness about global warming and VANOC's efforts to reduce emissions.

About a week before the games officially started, after all the planning was complete, the DSF released an official report on how well VANOC did to make the games environmentally friendly. The DSF gave them "Bronze" for their overall performance. They did alright considering that if the DSF scored all the Olympics in the last ten years, none of them would of been awarded gold, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. Here are the main points of the report:

Positive:

reduced total Olympic and Paralympic related emissions by 15%
achieved goal of diverting 85% of Olympic and Paralympic related waste
committed to offsetting 118 000 tonnes of emissions
built and renovated energy efficient venues
used renewable and green energy at venues
saved 15% or more of energy costs at many venues
encouraged public transit
tracked Olympic and Paralympic related emissions for over 7 years

Negative:

didn't reach 0 or close to 0 in Olympic and Paralympic related emissions
public education/awareness programs wern't very effective
increased emissions from transportation due to widening highway between Vancouver and Whistler at a cost of 600 million dollars in order to accommodate spectators
committed to offsetting less than half of their emissions
no long term transportation system will exist after the games are over
didn't publicly announce their emissions target

I think that VANOC showed a lot of effort to make the games greener but no where near enough. The main thing that Olympic organizing committees can do in the future to be more successful is reducing their total emissions even more and offsetting 100% of the emissions that they do have. Another big thing that could be improved is public awareness. Many millions of people watch the Olympics. I think that in the future there should be more effort made to inform viewers about global warming and the effect it has on sports. Something long term could be establishing a transportation system that will last long after the games are over to reduce the number of cars in the area. I hope to see all of these things and more implemented in the fast approaching London 2012 Summer Olympics.

References:

David Suzuki Foundation

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Alberta Oil Sands

One of the largest crisis's concerning the environment right now is the very debatable Alberta oil/tar sands. The extraction of the oil buried with in the sands has been polluting our water, air, and cutting down forests since 1967. Although the environmental devastation is huge, the oil sands' positive factor is that it produces a lot of income and jobs for Canadians.

The companies extracting oil from the sands are still operating because they receive a lot of support from the provincial and federal government. The government believes that the income and jobs generated outweighs the damage that is being done to the surrounding environment. In my opinion, the regulations that the government has set up that allow this to continue are a joke.

About 4% of Alberta's population is employed by the oil sands. This includes Engineers, construction workers, and anybody else who directly or indirectly works for a company associated with the oil sands. This is a significant number, but not high enough to say that Alberta's economy would crash if the oil sands were removed from the picture. The reason that everyone wants to extract the oil is because of the profit. If the price of oil continues to stay where it is right now, over 100 million dollars worth of oil will be extracted every single day.

It is obvious that the amount of oil extracted from the oil sands comes with a ton of negative impact to the environment. This is why the world is against the oil sands. There are an infinite amount of writers, environmentalists, and every day people who know that what we are doing is killing our planet one barrel at a time. Not only does it take a very large amount of water, space, and pollution to get the oil out of the ground, transporting it all over the world also produces pollution. And even worse, once it is made into gas the vehicles that consume it pollute the air even more. There is a seemingly endless chain of environmental destruction associated with the oil sands.

If you want proof here are some facts about the oil sands:

the Alberta oil sands are responsible for 6.5% of Canadian green house gasses emissions
The oil sands contributed 25% to the total increase of green house gasses emissions in Canada from 1990 to 2009
worst of all, these numbers are growing

Read over these facts and do some research and see what others are saying so you can decide for yourself if it is worth it to continue extracting oil from the oil sands. In my opinion, the sooner we stop polluting, the sooner we can work on reversing global warming.

In the 2 minutes that it has taken you to read this, over 1800 barrels of oil have been extracted from the oil sands. That is enough to last an average car over 4 years but the question you have to ask yourself is if it is worth it.

References:

Wikipedia
Government of Alberta

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Poll Results

Thank you to everyone that participated in the last poll (Which country recycles the largest % of their waste?).

Here are the results:

Japan	2 votes (25%)
Germany	4 votes (50%)
Canada	1 vote (12.5%)
Switzerland	1 vote (12.5%)

The correct answer was Switzerland. According to aneki.com, they recycle an astonishing 52% of their waste. Hopefully other countries step up and follow their path.

Here is a table including the top 7 countries in order:

	Country	Percentage of Waste Recycled

1	Switzerland	52%
2	Austria	49.7%
3	Germany	48%
4	Netherlands	46%
5	Norway	40%
6	Sweden	34%
7	United States	31.5%

As you can see it was dominated by European countries. I hope to see Canada in the list next year.

I will have another poll started in a few days. I'll try to make a new one on the first day of every month so keep checking back.

References:
http://www.aneki.com/recycling_countries.html

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Why Are People Ignoring Climate Change?

In the modern world that exists today, people's views are often dominated by media. Some might wonder how people can tune out what they hear on TV almost every day. Virtually everyone is aware of climate change and global warming but very few tend to act on the numerous warnings that they receive. I'm sure that there are many reasons for this but at the same time I'm sure that if the worst of global warming were to happen their reasons will seem like nothing.

The reason that many people tend to ignore global warming is that taking significant action would harm their daily lives and possibly the economy affecting everyone. They would have to lower their pollution and maybe even have to buy an electric car in the future. People would have to turn to cleaner sources of energy. They would have to change their lifestyles and recreational activities to something more friendly to the planet. You wouldn't see any more Ferrari's and Lamborghini's and air travel would change drastically. And worst of all, because of all these major changes, many large companies would go bankrupt and the result would be millions of lost jobs and entire countries losing there main source of income. Some industries that would be severely affected are mining, automobile manufacturing, the food industry because many would turn to locally grown things instead, and many other very large sources of jobs and income. All of this might be avoided if we acted soon and stopped denying global warming. Even if it can't be avoided we would eventually recover a lot easier than if the worst of global warming were to hit us.

You don't have to be a genius to figure all of this out. Many people already know this, so what allows them to keep a blind eye to global warming? The single largest reason if you ask me is hoping that the issue will be resolved by others. That they will let others sacrifice large parts of their lives and just watch on the sidelines. If a single person did this it wouldn't have much impact at all. The problem is that every human being has to get over the fact that sitting back will only lead to failure because many others will do the same. Power comes in numbers. We won't change anything unless the entire world agrees to do their part because the first word of global warming is global, not local, not national, not anything else. If the world instead turned a blind eye to the skeptics and deniers, they would catch on too.

If you're still not convinced take a look at this video and forward it to others. Even if one person has their opinion changed or influenced it will make a difference.

Like you just heard, you can't be certain whether global warming is real or not, you can only choose how to act. The best thing that anyone can do to make a difference is to convince others to lower their emissions and change their lifestyle for the benefit of the world. For significant action to happen, you can't sit back and hope for the best. If you are serious about wanting change you can write to the government and start your own blog to research this issue further.