How Green is Wind Power?

Wind energy can be defined as a source of renewable energy that comes from air currents flowing over the surface of the earth. Wind power is arguably one of the earliest and most basic forms of energy, having been utilized since the development of the first windmills in Europe hundreds of years ago. As the world intensifies its search for alternative energy sources, there has been a shift of attention to technologies aimed at converting wind energy into usable forms of electricity. Wind energy has been viewed as a free, renewable and pollution-free source of energy. It is also viewed as a sustainable source of energy, since the same supply available today will be available in future. However, sentiments have been raised on how green wind energy is, especially with regard to its economic viability and the level of carbon emissions it helps reduce. This paper reviews the ‘greenness’ of wind as a source of energy in the face of global warming and climate change. 

Wind energy production has grown tremendously over the last decade. Europe recorded the highest growth, with 81 percent of the world's new wind equipment installed in 1999. Estimates by the World Energy Council show that wind energy capacity worldwide could reach an overall total of 474,000 MW by the year 2020.

Wind Energy Generation
Wind energy results from the sun when it heats up the earth to different temperatures at different places and times. This result in unequal distribution of heat which creates wind as warm air rises and cooler air descends to fill the vacuum. This continuous air movement is what we perceive as wind.

Wind energy is generated by means of a wind turbine, which is a rotated by the wind’s kinetic energy and converts it into mechanical energy. The generated energy can be used directly by different types of machinery, such as pumps or grinding stones, in which case the assembly is known as a windmill. The mechanical energy can also be converted to electric energy through a wind turbine, wind generator, wind energy converter, or aero generator. According to an article from Wind Power Development Website, the use of wind machines has a long history. The ancient Egyptians used wind to sail along river Nile. In Persia, wind power was used as early as 200BC to grind grain and pump water.

Wind power was also used by the Dutch to reclaim land from the sea through draining of wetlands. As recently as the 1800s, windmills were used to generate electricity in North America, and continued to do until the 1930s. Wind power was also widely used in Alexandria, as the windwheel of Heron of Alexandria is one of the most well known wind power machines known in history (Drachmann, A.G, 1961). By the 7th Century, practical windmills emerged in Sistan, Iran, and were used in the gristmilling and sugarcane industries (Donald, R.H. 1991).

Today, wind power generation is widely used to provide energy in many countries. Some of the countries that widely use wind energy include Denmark, USA, Germany, and Sweden among others. It is estimated that wind machines can produce on average 30–40% of their rated capacity. For instance, a 400-ft-high, 2-megawatt turbine machine could produce as much as 600– 800 kilowatts over a one year period.

Why Wind Energy?
Wind energy, especially in the form of electricity, is developing fast all over the world. The installed generating capacity of wind energy increased by an average of 32% annually between 1998 and 2002 worldwide. This growth is attributed to the use of modern technology in installation of wind generating turbines, which has reduced the cost by over 80% since the first commercial wind turbines were installed. It is believed that in areas with an excellent wind resource, it is more affordable to get power from wind than from traditional sources such as coal and natural gas.

In the USA alone, wind power generation is the second most widely used source of power generation after natural gas, (Jackobson, n.d.).  A total of 16,818 megawatts of power were produced in the USA by the end of 2007, with 30% of the generating capacity coming from newly installed plants. In 2008, the American wind energy Association, estimated that approximately 30 percent of all new electricity supplies were produced from wind energy. It is estimated that about 1 percent of the United States power requirements will be met by wind energy in 2009, which is sufficient to supply 4.5 million homes. Future projections indicate that an estimated 20% of the total energy production in the US will be provided by wind energy in the future. Denmark tops the list of countries that exploit wind energy, with 20 percent of power needs produced from wind generators.

Theoretically, wind power generation has great potential, with countries such as the USA estimating the potential to be five times higher than what is presently being generated. Wind farms could be located in a variety of areas, especially on farmlands. Wind power will vary depending on the location and the cost of installation. Although the market for wind power largely depends on the cost of installation, this has fallen dramatically by about 90 percent since 1980. It is projected that by 2010, wind energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel-produced power.

Households are being encouraged to install small home turbines, as these would play a big role in the overall development of wind power.  This is especially so because these turbines are sufficient to supply a home or a farm, and they are easy to install.  Home owners are also being urged to reduce the cost of installing wind power by building turbines from auto parts.

Electricity produced from wind is sometimes referred to as Green Power because its production produces no pollution. Demand for wind energy is therefore increasing with an increase in health and environmental concerns.  It is also said to be sustainable because wind is inexhaustible and therefore renewable. Production of electricity through wind only requires the wind itself and the turbine assemblage. Also, due to technological advancement, wind energy has become affordable. Wind energy production can also accelerate economic development. This is largely because its production enables communities to keep funds that would have otherwise been used to buy electricity. Further, it creates jobs through encouraging energy-demanding processes such as manufacturing, construction, service and operation.
Emerging Concerns over Wind Power Generation

According to an article by Reuters that was published by The Guardian (2009), France’s former president, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, is leading a fierce battle against the expansion of wind power turbines. There has been a growing political opposition of wind power generation in France, coupled with lack of government support. This puts France on the spotlight and it means that it is in danger of missing wind power generation targets set by European Commission.  The former president stated that wind turbines were impairing the French landscape, and questioned the fiscal and financial rules governing their management.
Although most environmentalists urge for increased wind energy production, several sentiments have been raised over the impact of wind energy towards resolving global environmental problems. According to National wind watch (2009), the actual total wind energy production in the US is only about 25% of its total capacity. This is only possible for only a third of the time. Further, National wind watch reports that wind power generation produces no power at all for a third of the time, but will draw power from the grid. The high variability in output rarely conforms to energy demand, and therefore other sources of energy cannot be taken offline. It is feared that the extra burden of balancing the wind energy may lead to other energy sources using even more fuel, comparable to how cars use more fuel during traffic jams than in highway driving.

National Wind Watch reports that the wind power generation industry has failed to demonstrate how the use of wind power on the grid reduces reliance on other fuel sources. For example, Denmark has not reduced the use of other fuels despite claims that wind turbines produce approximately 20% of its electricity. Therefore, National Wind Watch reports that large-scale wind power production neither reduces dependence on other energy sources nor stabilizes prices. It does not appear to reduce emissions and pollution, and plays insignificant role in mitigating global warming.

In addition, every turbine assemblage requires a huge amount of land, and many acres of land must be cleared to pave way for wind farms. Concerns have also been raised regarding the turbines extreme height and rotating blades, which generate extreme noise. At night, the assemblages require strobe lighting, and various groups feel that these factors cancel out the wind power’s contribution. Further, each wind power facility needs transmission infrastructure including roads, which further degrade the environment and fragment habitats for wildlife.

It has been expressed that most utilities choice is to avoid energy sources from wind because of their unreliability. However, with the world now moving towards greener sources of energy, several governments have adopted policy regulations that require utilities to use a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources. For example, in the USA, several states are required to draw a certain percentage of their energy from renewable sources, and additional ones will be required to do so in future. There lack programmes that require utilities to show the benefit of using renewable energy sources, which would monitor how effective wind power generation is in reducing emissions. In Japan, however, many utilities have the capability of limiting the amount of wind power that they can allow, while in Germany, grid managers shut down the wind turbines once in a while to help keep the grid network stable. Also in Denmark, much of the energy generated from wind has to be shunted to pumped hydro amenities in Norway and Sweden.

Wind energy is however quite profitable especially to wind turbine manufacturers. For example, the cost of erecting wind turbines is very high, and large portion of it (between two-thirds and three-fourths) is met by taxpayers. State governments need utilities to buy the generated energy. Although it does not appear to effectively replace other sources. Additionally, wind energy-generating companies may sell “renewable energy credits,” and “green tags,” which they invented. Many groups view this as a way to sell the same energy two times.

Why then, do communities support wind power generation as a source of energy? National wind Watch suggests that developers usually target poor communities and make deals with individual landowners and local authorities prior to the project’s public presentation. Reports indicate that the communities’ prospect of increased profits may overshadow their interest to inquire about the project’s negative impacts.

Wind turbines have been responsible for massive declines in bird populations. For example, in the early 1980s, three wind farms were built in California along bird routes, which resulted in deaths of birds, especially raptors. This prompted some studies, which recommended that turbine design and location could avert death of birds. It was realized that birds of prey perch on the wind generators for a better sighting of their prey, and sometimes get crashed by the rotating blades.  Current turbine designs are tubular, and this prevents birds from perching. Turbine blades also rotate at a slower speed, and this reduces chances of birds colliding with them.

Conclusion and Way forward
Traditional forms of energy such as atomic and fossil fuels are still regarded as more efficient in generating electricity needed for drive modern ways of life compared to wind energy. However, they contribute significantly to the greenhouse effect, and there is therefore need to explore other alternatives in order to ensure a better environment for present and future generations.  Wind energy is not only natural, but also clean and healthy. Its impact to the environment is minimal, and it produces no harmful byproducts such as those produced by nuclear power and fossil fuels. Contrary to beliefs of many groups and individuals, wind power generation is very cost effective.  It is estimated that currently it costs approximately 5 cents per kilowatt-hour on average to produce wind energy. This makes generation of wind energy far much cheaper than any other forms of alternative energy.

Because wind is unlikely to stop blowing, it is 100% renewable form of energy. As such, the price of production of wind energy is also unlikely to increase. It is in actual sense expected to decrease even further. Wind power is mostly generated in rural areas. The prospect of boosting the economy can be increase through expanding the capacity to generate electricity from wind power in rural areas, which will ultimately contribute to the overall economy.

Conversion of wind energy into electricity may not be highly efficient, but one can apply simple technologies even at the domestic scale. Although it is not possible to convert type of energy into another with 100% efficiency, the efficiency of wind power generation is approximately 10-20% for propellor turbines and 35% for Darrieus turbines. Propeller turbines are however preferred to the Darrieus turbines because they are practically more efficient because their design. Additionally, the Darrieus turbines operate within a narrower wind speed range and ado not start automatically as propellor turbines do.

Home and farm owners should explore the option of installing small-scale wind energy systems to their households. This practice is common in many rural areas, and has been practiced for decades. Batteries can be used to store the excess energy, which can be used during periods of low wind speed. It is also possible to channel the excess energy generated to the national grid through a connection. Wind power can also be used in combination with solar and fossil-driven power in order to increase the output. Most household appliances can be driven by the smaller wind turbines, which have a direct current output. Ranchers in rural areas should exploit this opportunity, which is a good utilization of their ranchland. They could lease for windmills to provide a constant source of income, especially during this time when global climatic changes affect other forms of landuse.

Chernobyl Disaster: Then and Now


 Accidents are not something that can be considered as something out of the ordinary, specially when dealing with immense machineries and outdated technology. Nuclear power plant operation is no exception to the rule. Massive amounts of energy, if not properly monitored and regulated, can and will cause a catastrophe unimaginable in scale and magnitude. Whether the accident at the Chernobyl power plant in 1986 was an accident or caused by human negligence or sheer incompetence will be the focus of the paper.

    In April of 1986, the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl exploded, releasing a significant amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere. The  cause of the disaster was allegedly due to the deficient design of the nuclear reactor in the plant and the inadequacy in the training of the personnel that were in charge on operating the plant itself. Indirectly, the cause of the nuclear disaster was the isolation of the Soviet Union from the technology available that could have made the plant operate on a safer level. On the evening of the disaster, two workers of the plant died, and within a span of a few weeks, 28 more people lost their lives as a result of the accident (World Nuclear Association).

    On the 28th of April in Sweden, plant officials from the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, located 60 miles to the north of the capital Stockholm, monitored high levels of radiation in the atmosphere.  At first they checked on the status of their own reactors for signs of trouble, and finding nothing, examined the clothes of the workers in the plant. To their surprise, the clothing gave off dangerous levels of radiation. Ground and air samples gave off four to five times the average amount of radiation that was considered safe (John Greenwald 1).

    The operation of the plant was met with some measure of skepticism by the general public, skepticism and fear that was met with a degree of either misplaced optimism or just plain bravado from Soviet officials. In his paper From Scientific research to Nuclear Industry, exactly 14 years before the accident, A.M. Petrosyants, chair of the Soviet Union State committee on the use of nuclear energy, said that the future of the Soviet nuclear industry was very promising, and assured the nation of a stable and ready source of power (Medvedev 2).

    Moscow moved swiftly to contain the damage bought about by the disaster. Moscow released findings that the radioactive readings in the German Democratic Republic, or East Germany, was safe and within normal levels. But all of that was a cleverly schemed lie to cover up the effects of the accident. In their minds, the nuclear power industry was a symbol of advanced progress. That would be coupled with their boasting that the use of nuclear power was safe and economical (Miriam Schroder 1). Illustration 1: Location of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Source: World Nuclear Association.

    Located approximately nine miles (14.5 kilometers) northwest of Chernobyl, the plant is situated 20 kilometers south of the Belarus border. At the time, the plant had four reactors in operation (Green Facts 1). Thee four working RBMK power units at the plant must be discussed, as this will give a further insight to the events that led to disaster. For the plant to generate electrical power, the plant must achieve a chain reaction of the uranium in the reactors. This is the same reaction that nuclear weapons achieve, such as the atomic bomb that devastated Hiroshima and the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki (Richard Mould 12). Using enriched uranium for its operation, the RBMK-1000 was a Soviet designed and manufactured graphite pressure tube type reactor. Steam is directly fed into the turbines, the water being fed to the bottom of the fuel channels achieving boiling point as they move up the pressure tubes. The steam produced by the water powers two 500 MW turbines, producing electricity (World). Illustration 2: RBMK 1000 deisgn reactor at Chernobyl. Source: World Nuclear Association.

    In the magazine Ogonyok, the academician M.A. Styrikovich (1980) praised the safety of nuclear power, saying that the nuclear power stations are not only safe, but perfectly safe to operate. This will provide the needed power for the then Soviet Union. In the same thread, N.M. Sinev, the deputy head of the State committee on the utilization of nuclear energy, stated that on the whole, nuclear power plants can be treated as ordinary furnaces, and the workers as those who shovel in the coal. In essence, Sinev said that the operation of the nuclear power plants are no more dangerous than operating a furnace or a steam boiler (Grigori Medvedev 1).The statements seemed to be designed to achieve a two-fold result. One, the statement seemed to have reassured the public about the safe operation of the plant. Secondly, the staff can be paid with the same wages as that of a thermal power plant, and even less than that. In the 1980's, the pay for the workers in the nuclear power plants were below that of the employees in the thermal power stations (Medvedev 1). But the disaster at Chernobyl seemed to have a foreboding in the words of Aleksandr Yefimovich Sheidlin in his comments to the Literaturnaya Gazeta, on August 1984:

    ...We were delighted to hear of a remarkable achievement- the start-up of the No. 4 reactors, generating one million kilowatts of electricity, at the V.I. Lenin nuclear power station, Chernobyl... (Medvedev 3).
Sheidlin had no idea at the time that the number 4 reactor was to be the catalyst for worst nuclear disasters in the history of mankind (John McCarthy). On the 25th of April of 1986, the operators of the plant began a series of tests on the number 4 reactor of the Chernobyl plant, prior to a scheduled shutdown of the plant (World). The tests sought to determine the time that the turbines would spin and supply power to the primary circulating pumps resulting from a power loss of electrical supply. A series of actions by the operators were done ahead of the tests in the early hours of the 26th of April, including the shutdown of the automatic shutdown systems. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor, it had already achieved an unstable condition (World).

    The accident at Chernobyl was basically a combination of insufficient training on the part of the operators running the facility and the outdated architecture of the plant (Green Facts 1). The engineers at the plant had disabled the safety mechanisms in the plant and the reactor was being run under unsafe and hazardous standards. These factors combined in a uncontrolled surge of power to happen at the plant. The power surge caused the fuel to overheat and then explode (Green Facts 1).  

    The Chernobyl Power complex was built about 130 kilometers of the city of Kiev in the Ukraine region of the former Soviet Union. The plant had 4 nuclear reactors of the RBMK-1000 design. The initial two units of the plant were constructed between 1970 and 1977, and the second batch of units (Units 3 and 4) were constructed and completed by 1980. At the time of the accident, the plant was also being installed with 2 more units of the same design (World Nuclear Association).

    At the southeast end of the plant,  an artificial lake was constructed spanning 22 kilometers beside the Pripyat River to provide the water to cool down the reactors. The area can be described as a low population center, a woodland type of geography. In the city of Pripyat, there were an estimated 49,000 residents, and the town of Chernobyl, with approximately 12,500 residents is situated about 15 kilometers  to the southeast of the plant. Within the 30-mile radius with the plant in the center, the total number of people living in that area is estimated to be 115,000 to 135,000 people (World Nuclear Association).

    In the report of the Chernobyl Forum: Health Expert Group in 2006, it was stated that apart from the initial causalities in the accident, deaths that can be traced to the actual radiation exposure from the Chernobyl accident will never be known. The Expert Group states that of the number that were exposed to the radiation from Chernobyl, 28 people, mostly from the ranks of the workers and the firemen who responded to controlling the blaze, died as a result of acute radiation syndrome, followed by 19 more in the period of 1987-2004. Also, in the aftermath of the explosion and the fallout from the plant, an estimated 116,000 people from the surrounding areas in 1986 (World).

    But the more telling factor among the people affected by the accident is that the rampant poverty, limitations on agriculture have led and more people to claim benefits with the package to aid the actual victims of the Chernobyl disaster. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, many people have laid claim to the benefits tied in with the Chernobyl accident. This is because claiming to be a victim of the tragedy and receiving the benefits from the claim became a means of subsistence for many people. At present some 2.2 million people have received benefits in the forms of financial assistance, pensions and improved access to health care and privileges originally for the victims of the tragedy (UNDP and UNICEF).
  
    In the immediate aftermath, all of the xenon gas, half of the cesium and the iodine and the remaining 5% of the radioactive material left in the number 4 reactor was released. In 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) released their findings that the Russian health officials had inadvertently associated several biological and health issues to radiation exposure. As a result of the WHO statement, the Russian authorities requested the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to facilitate in conjunction with several international experts an accurate evaluation of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster in terms of radiological, health and environment impact in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. By 2000, an estimated 4000 thyroid cases had been found in children diagnosed in the area (World).

    In the early part of 2003, the Chernobyl Forum was founded by the IAEA. In the reports of the UNSCEAR, in 2000, there was no noticeable effect that could be traced back to exposure to radiation 14 years after the disaster (World). In the United Kingdom, it is estimated that more than 300 farms in Britain cannot be used fully owing to the fallout effects of the Chernobyl disaster (Terry Macalister and Helen Carter 1). The announcement came as the United Kingdom pushed to build a new generation of nuclear plants across the country. In the report of the Ministry of Health, the government admitted that more than 360 farms and more than 190,000 heads of sheep were affected by the fallout, but also stated that the number is a far cry from the immediate numbers from the Ukraine fallout  (Macalister and Carter 1).

    Large amounts of lands were contaminated by the fallout radiation in the three former states of the Soviet Union. Also, the trace deposition of the radionuclide released from the reactor were still traceable in all Northern Hemisphere countries. The main areas that are considered as the heaviest contaminated are in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The territories were designated as the Central, Gomel-Mogilev-Bryansk and Kaluga-Tula-Orel areas (World).

    The Central area consisted of lands within 100 square kilometers of the Chernobyl reactor, to the west and northwest of the power plant. The Gomel-Mogilev-Bryansk area is 200 kilometers north-northeast of the plant at the border of the Gomel and Mogilev regions of Belarus and the Bryansk region of the Russian Federation. The Kaluga-Tula-Orel  region is 500 kilometers of the reactor, situated within the Russian Federation. In total, the areas contaminated totaled 150,000 square kilometers with a deposition density above the normal 37kBq/square mile (World).

    Around the plant itself, it is estimated that 60 square miles of farmland in the area of the Soviet Union will be contaminated for decades to come. The reason is that the only way to remove the contamination is to completely remove the topsoil. The cesium 137 and strontium 90, particles that were released in the fire, take a longer time to break down. Though air currents can carry the radiation to the North American shores, American officials say there is very little need to worry. The Environmental Protection Agency has increased monitoring activities  to immediately detect airborne particles from the fallout (Greenwald 1).

    In the early parts of the 1990's, an estimated $400 million was used to improve the operations of the remaining reactors at Chernobyl. The operation of reactor 3 was necessary to avert energy shortages until December of 2000. In the course of the operations of the remaining reactors, more than 6000 people reported for work at the plant, and were constantly monitored for radiation levels. When the announcement made in 1995 to completely shut down the two remaining operating reactors, Ukraine and the Group of 7 nations, the 7 most industrialized nations in the world, signed a memorandum of understanding to work for the implementation of the move, but encountered delays in execution (World).

    In the research done by the Institute of Sociology, the accident at Chernobyl led to an array of psychological issues for the people affected, inclusive of the feeling of being victimized. In their report, the Institute found that stress was at its peak among re settlers that moved away from their ancestral lands as a result of the evacuation procedures during the accident. The feelings of distress seems to have stayed constant even though a number of years have passed since the fatal day. The stress among the people who chose to stay in their homes in the areas hit by the contamination registered less stress than those who were forced to leave (UNDP and UNICEF).

    Though the accurate figures on the losses due to Chernobyl are hard to come by, Belarus put in a figure of $235 billion spread over three decades. Ukraine, for its part, states that the losses incurred from 1986 to 2000 will be around $148 billion. Losses include the balance of payments in the purchasing of electricity that would have been sourced locally. Since Chernobyl to the present time, more than 340,000 people have been relocated as part of the ongoing efforts to clean the area of contamination (UNDP and UNICEF). The Chernobyl Forum estimates that 7 million people will be eligible to receive benefits relating to the accident (World).

    In the report of the United Nations Development Program, the people still have a dearth of information on leading healthy and useful lives. The information lack is not the culprit in the issue; it is the lack of means to get the information out for the people to use. The information on leading healthy lifestyles is not that important as to the safe living practices with low-dosage radiation. Community workers will be fielded into the affected areas to remove the false beliefs of people regarding exposure to radiation (United Nations Development Program 1).

Environment


As global temperatures increase more water vapor evaporates, the water in the troposphere increases and more water condenses to form clouds.
Global warming is caused by the activities of the human race and has become very severe with the situation worsening by day (Markham, 2009). Approximately 100% of temperature increases in the past fifty years has resulted from the raise in atmosphere of the greenhouse gas concentrations such as water vapor, ozone, carbon dioxide and methane. When sunlight reaches the surface of earth, some of it is absorbed to warm the earth while most is radiated back toward the air (atmosphere) at longer wavelengths than the sunlight. Some of the longer wavelengths get absorbed by the greenhouse gases before they escape to space. Absorption of these longer waves radiant energy causes warming in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases operate like a mirror reflecting back to earth some heat energy which could have been lost to the space. It causes an increase in global temperatures (Timeforchange, 2009).

The world’s atmosphere contains 0.0001 percent only earth’s water. Nevertheless, it is an important component of global hydrologic cycle. Air currents carry water vapor over land resulting to precipitation which sustains life on earth. One intuitive result of warmer ocean surface is larger water vapor pressure difference between the sea surface and the adjacent atmosphere. This increases rate of evaporation and consequently the rest of the hydrologic cycle rates also increase. Models have suggested that since global warming is increasing the precipitation rate, the increase is likely to result to heavier rainfall instead of frequent rainfalls or rainfalls of long phases (Water encyclopedia, 2009)

These changes in the rain patterns and events can be either beneficial or harmful. This is because increase in the rainfall rates can cause flooding and increased cloudiness cause heating of globe. On the other hand, it could have beneficial effects on agriculture and other water uses. This is therefore both a positive as well as a negative feedback.
Effects of sulfate aerosols on the surface air

There are two major ways in which an increase in sulfate aerosols might lower surface air temperature. First, as suggested by the Environmental News Network, (2009) sulfur dioxide is changed to sulfate aerosols once emitted into the atmosphere. The capability of sulfate aerosols to reflect radiation of the sun is one reason as to why greenhouse gases have not warmed the globe as would be expected. Secondly, aerosols are an essential source of nucleus about which cloud droplets condense.  In the tropical areas, they are a chief source of the condensation. In essence, more the cloud condensation nuclei cause brighter cloud and therefore, additional solar radiation is reflected into space prior to reaching the surface of Earth (Timeforchange, 2009).

The likelihood of ice ages
Ice is likelier when the earth’s tilt is at maximum. This is because if the earth’s tilt is bigger in NH winter, northern latitudes will be farther from the sun compared to where they would be when the tilt is smaller. Hence the entire NH would have a cooler winter (Timeforchange, 2009).
Effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere

As the earth warms, it is expected that less CO2 will be dissolved in the oceans. This will result in increased warming because it is anticipated that CO2 has an atmospheric lifespan of fifty to two hundred years. This means that it stays in the atmosphere for a very long period and because the absorption rate is decreasing in the oceans, the warming will become even higher in the nearer future, causing a negative feedback (Markham, 2009).

Environmental Issues on Natural Gas Plants: Policy Brief


Executive Summary
Natural gas remains one of the most viable solutions to the US energy needs; however, the production process has presented critical environmental concerns not only to the state of Maryland, but to the United States as a whole. Natural gas producing plants are considered significant air pollutants thereby posing great danger to the immediate surrounding and the entire global ecosystem (Inhofe 1). Based on the exponential increase in natural gas plants during the past two decades, arguments and counterarguments have been presented on the controversial subject of natural gas processing and its adverse environmental impact, cases in which the state of Maryland can borrow a leaf from prior to approving the establishment of any natural gas plant. Inhofe (2) notes that, in excess of 1,000 proposals for new natural gas power plants were advanced in the U.S alone in the early 1990s, 90% of all power plant proposals globally.

Owing to the energy needs of the nation and the world at large, it may not be possible to replace all natural gas plants hence alternatives must be sought. We propose the establishment of guidelines in consultation with various stake holders to determine whether specific locations are viable. At best, we recommend that the state of Maryland opposes the establishment of any new natural gas plants within its jurisdiction. We also propose that the state offers more funding to alternative energy sources to reduce the overreliance on natural gas by the residents of the state of Maryland. Statistics provided by IPCC Fourth Assessment Report indicate that, based on 2004 statistics, natural gas produced 5,300 Mt/yr of carbon dioxide emission, statistics indicative of its relatively minimal carbon dioxide emission when compared to the 10,600 and 10,200 Mt/yr produced by coal and oil respectively (Inhofe 1). Although this is considerably favorable statistics, scientific analyses conclude that natural gas is far more potent when released in the atmosphere when it comes to its environmental implications.
Problem Statement

Dominant scholars argue that natural gas plants release carbon dioxide, the main green house gas during NG production. McAllister & Lofgren (1) assert that these plants are significant air pollution sources that lead to the release of hazardous air pollutants leading to the combined effects of global warming and fine particulate matter pollutions. Natural gas plants also release small amounts of carbon monoxide, formaldehyde and nitrogen oxides, primarily nitrogen dioxide. In most cases, methane is unintentionally released into the air by these plants, a major concern to environmentalists owing to the classification of methane as a more powerful greenhouse gas comparative to carbon dioxide (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

The extraction of natural gas has also been noted by environmental experts as threatening to the ecosystem. Natural gas plants are being established in nearly all regions of North America with drilling occurring on farms, public land, forests, and parks, mountains, off costal waters and even within great lakes (Schechter, Spitzer, Hutcheon 284). The creation of natural gas plants incorporates the inclusion of pipeline and compressor station adding to environmental harm. Water bodies are threatened owing to proposal by natural gas producers to bury pipeline underwater in trenches, a move that may lead to the accumulation of toxic sentiments on the floor of major water sources (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

McAllister & Lofgren (1) also affirm that natural gas plants often emit high concentrations of Hydrogen Sulphide (H2S), a feat proven by the compounds’ relatively high prevalence in communities neighboring the plants. Based on epidemiological studies conducted on the health of communities living in the vicinities of natural gas plants, reports indicate multitudes of adverse effects inclusive of elevated occurrences of cancer, adverse effects on reproduction and increased birth defect, skin problems, heightened levels of mortality and contamination with certain heavy metals. Other less considerable consequences such as fatigue and headache were also observable (Schechter, Spitzer, & Hutcheon 108).

It is imperative to note that natural gas plants emit high proportion of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), aerosols, particulates, volatile organic compounds, organo-metallic compounds, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) during gas processing (McAllister & Lofgren 1).  Nitrogen dioxide has adverse effects when exposed to the environment with documentations noting that it is a contributory factor to the development of asthma. Natural gas plants also emit fine organic particles inclusive of carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons and certain volatile organic solvents all of which adversely affect the environment.  Clinical indicators also attest to the fact that sulphur dioxide (SO2) exposure may lead to lung cancer, furthermore there is increased prevalence of respiratory symptoms to children who have evident environmental exposure to natural gas plant emissions (McAllister, & Lofgren 1). Additional serious challenges extending beyond human life such as adverse effects on livestock, plants and property within the surrounding areas of a natural gas plant have been documented.

Natural gas plants also emit certain deposits of toxic heavy metals inclusive of mercury, arsenic and lead. Analyses indicate that natural gas contains high concentrations of heavy metals including lead, copper, mercury, silver and arsenic hence they emit high deposits of the noted heavy metals which are dangerous if absorbed into human and animal system. More specifically, methyl mercury, for example, produced in higher levels in natural gas plants can be absorbed up to nearly 100% in the gastrointestinal tract, yet mercury is a known neurotoxin and has also reproductive effects on humans (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

Dominant studies attest to the fact that natural gas plant workers are at elevated risk for certain types of cancer, most prevalently cancer of the brain, testis, skin and intestinal tract (McAllister & Lofgren 1). These employees may be exposed to radon radiation in the course of processing or as a result of having contact with the storing or cleaning equipment (McAllister, & Lofgren 1). Other studies also ascertain to the environmental exposure of natural gas plant employees to large concentration of mercury in spite of personal protection. Prolonged occupational exposure within natural gas plants may lead to slowed long term neural and tremor effects and renal problems.
Issue Background
    Manufactured natural gas was first put to use in the United States in 1816 when the streets of Baltimore, Maryland were lit with the naturally occurring gas. Since then, rise in manufactured gas has been exponential, drawing considerable opposition due to its low efficiency and environmental unfriendliness. At present, owing to the relatively lucrative business potential, commercial production of natural gas attracts a number of agencies, interest groups and large corporations and is also a source of intense opposition from environmentalists (Schechter, Spitzer, Hutcheon 283). Gas plants enjoy environmental advantage relative to other power producing plants. Based on statistical analysis the emissions of carbon dioxide per GJ of produced energy for brown coal, black coal, petroleum and natural gas stand at 93.3 kg, 90.7 kg, 68.2 kg, and 50.9 kg respectively (Schechter, Spitzer, Hutcheon 287).

Supporters and various interest groups affirm that NG is widely available, clean, and relatively easy to extract and used for commercial purposes. At present, the American environmental policies have generally favored the creation of natural gas plants owing to its commercial benefits. Environmental policies created during the early years of 1990s made the operation of coal-fired power plants extremely complex, burdensome and uneconomical thereby making many companies resort to investments in gas-fired plants. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendment was instrumental to shifting the trend from coal to gas since it required all plants to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions with the key purpose of combating acid rain and reducing particulate matter. Yet natural gas plants also pose threats to the specific concerns addressed by the Clean Air Act Amendment.

Since the United States congress supports the creation of additional natural gas plants, it is only the environmental groups who could aid in assessing the relative adverse impact of NG plants if it remains unchecked. Environmental groups have certainly complicated the creation of additional natural gas plants through an assortment of strategies one most notable of which remains filing costly and time consuming lawsuits to block drilling of projects (Inhofe 5). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is considered a massive bureaucratic constraint on the establishment of natural gas plants. A number of several states and local governments must assess existent environmental condition prior to the establishment of a plant (McAllister & Lofgren 1).

The Bureau of Land Management (BLB), Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Service and the Federal Energy Regulatory commission must be incorporated to assess the environmental impact of establishing natural gas plants.  The NEPA provision stipulates two key steps which govern the creation of a natural gas plant; conduction of environmental assessment (EA) which serves as a determinant of the effects of the proposed activity on the environment (McAllister & Lofgren 1). If the assessment attests to the viability of the project, Environment Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared before the responsible federal agency may approve its creation. EIS is a complicated process involving multiple federal agencies hence may take several months or even years (Inhofe 6).
Policy Alternatives

Since the establishment of natural gas plants cannot be stopped entirely, effective management with legal definition presents the best alternative to managing the potential environmental impact of natural gas plants. Regular monitoring of fugitive emissions from pipes, valves, seals, and tanks should be a key safety priority for all natural gas plants. The state government must increase its monitoring efforts in ensuring that plants take precautions to maintain stable tank pressure and vapor space in addition to selecting and designing storage tanks in accordance to internationally prescribed standards. These precautionary measures must be guided by government officials and agencies rather than leaving them to gas plants.  Further precautionary measures should be inclusive of the use of bottom-loading tracks and minimization to the most limited level emissions possible in the course of natural gas processing (Bolland, & Sæther 467).

Since the location of the plants has been predicted to affect surrounding environmental conditions, such as surface water resources in areas that surround the plant, it should be a government policy that they be established within secluded regions. Establishment within or nearer to residential or water areas may lead to the contamination of surrounding water resources, an aspect that calls for conclusive assessment of existing water resources prior to the creation of a natural gas plant. The effect of plant on public health, most notably air quality and noise, are also notable environmental concerns of natural gas plants which directly supports the proposition that the gas should be established within secluded regions.

Presently, the control of natural gas production is minimal owing to its strong economic position. It is hereby recommended that more stringent regulations be established to ensure the control of natural gas production for the purpose of environmental preservation. This should be favored in comparison to the question of whether energy requirement by the masses should justify creation of more plants. Although natural gas is an important component of the American economy contributing to approximately 25% of all the U.S energy need based on 2004 statistics control for the sake of environmental preservation is called for (Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc. 1).
Recommendations

Since the safety of individuals within the plants (such as employees) and others in the surrounding environments has been put to question, it is recommended that a motion be moved to congress to advocate for the absolute seclusion of new natural gas plants.  In contrast to conventional reports by various studies that natural gas toxicity to human health is low, experiences indicate that a good proportion of the general population react extremely adversely in the emissions of a natural gas plant. Adverse effects of air emissions, waste water exposure, exposure to hazardous materials, noise pollution and wastes are some of the environmental effects that natural gas plant employees are exposed to.

Fugitive emissions occurring during natural gas processing may be as a result of leaks in tubing, valves, connections, flanges, open-ended lines, gas conveyance systems, pressure relief valves, tanks or open pits, and in the process of loading and unloading hydrocarbons (McAllister & Lofgren 1). This is attributable to the impurities and odorants in the gas. Specific components of the gas such as methane are believed to contain low conventional toxicity; however, it is also classified as an asphyxiant. In addition to the environmental concerns, safety concerns have also surrounded the natural gas cost-benefit debate. It is estimated that a minute amount of leaks of the natural gas may cause an enormous explosion. Furthermore, natural gas is recognized as one of the most important sources of indoor air pollution. Taking all this into consideration justifies the call for absolute seclusion of new natural gas plants.

More control of natural gas production by setting of limits is recommended as it is noted that natural gas production in the global domain is expected to increase its emission of CO2 by 2030. Projections presented by SRES B2 emissions indicate that natural gas emission is expected to surplus that of coal reaching 11,000 Mt/year while coal and oil reaching 8,400 and 17,200 Mt/year respectively (Energy and Environmental Analysis Inc.1). Since the environmental concerns of natural gas plants are quite substantial, more stringent limiting legislations are recommended to overburden natural gas producers. The work of the environmentalists should be encouraged making the creation of new plants difficult. As of present, prior to the establishment of a new natural gas plants, gas producers face an indeterminate number of lawsuits from a variety of interest groups. The ultimate creation of a plant occurs alongside considerable legal restrictions making production an extremely costly and time consuming exercise (Inhofe 8). This trend must be supported at all costs to ensure the environment is considerably protected.

Conclusively, natural gas has a high share in fossil fuel consumption and poses positive characteristics such as high heating value, easy transportation and supply, less commissioning and maintenance, relatively attractive cost making its adoption suitable and justifying the establishment of additional natural gas plants. However, environmental impacts are certainly adverse; hence while the growing demand for natural gas in the contemporary society is put into consideration, environmental and biological impacts of creating such plants should also be taken into account. At all times, the middle ground needs to be reached on the controversial topic of environmental impact of natural gas plants. Proponents should conclusively demonstrate that natural gas plants many not cause harm to both natural and human environments without which further justification for creation of additional natural gas plants may be invalid.  Based on the above analysis, precautionary measures should be undertaken prior to the establishment of natural gas plants.