Andrew Thorburn
Critical Studies
Assignment 1
The Energy Crisis and its Effects on Planet Earth
From the dawn of mankind humans have relied on the resources of planet Earth, as all animals do. As human society has evolved and global population risen, it has relied more and more on resources that are unsustainable. This essay aims at exploring the human population’s and modern day society’s desire for energy, from early fossil fuel consumption through the industrial revolution to modern fossil fuel consumption as well as the adverse affects on the Earth’s environment which the use of these fuels have, and what the future will have to hold in terms of renewable energy sources in order for Earth to survive human life. This essay will explore the aforementioned factors initially on a global scale and later on a local scale in terms of Cape Town, South Africa and what Cape Town, as a city, can do regarding the environmental effects of fossil fuel consumption.
Modern energy solutions are largely based on fossil fuels, fuels that are non-renewable and, because of society’s high dependency on energy, will ultimately run out in the next 250- 350 years (How much fossil fuels are left? When will fossil fuels run out 2009). Fossil fuels are formed by the decayed remains of plants and organisms buried and compressed under layers of soil in the earth’s crust, the process takes roughly 300-million years to produce the combustible products (List of Fossil Fuels n.d.) which is why it is non-renewable in terms of the timeline of human society.
Fossil fuels have been used for millennia by humankind, as early as 4000BC the Egyptians were using oil seeping from riverbanks as a treatment for wounds as well as for burning lamps; around 1000BC the Chinese discovered coal and burned it in order to smelt copper, and between 3000BC and 1BC natural gas fuelled the ‘Eternal Fires’ of the Persian fire worshippers (List of Fossil Fuels n.d.).
For millennia human society’s use of fossil fuels was moderate and sustainable, but it was the industrial revolution that changed the way fossil fuels were used. Prior to the industrial revolution, wood was used as the primary source of combustible products to provide energy, it was only in the mid 1700s when the industrial revolution began that, due to a high demand and a seemingly infinite supply, coal was used in order to replace wood as the chosen fuel to create energy (The Evolution and Use of the World’s Energy Systems, 2008). Coal was used as a result of the high instance of the fossil fuel in England, the birthplace of the Industrial Revolution. It was found to be a far more efficient fuel as it lasted much longer than wood with its rapidly diminishing supply, as well as providing far more energy (The Evolution and Use of the World’s Energy Systems, 2008). The British government made their best effort to keep the industrial revolution within its borders but it was not too long before the technology and machinery made its way to Europe and, later, over the pond to the United States of America while coal was still the primary source of energy, this created a higher demand on global coal supplies, as the more machinery on the global stage, the more coal was required to fuel them.
It wasn’t until oil wells began to pop up all across the United States of America in the late 19th century that oil became well known as an energy source. Industries found more and more uses for it, but a little known product of oil was utilised as the fuel for Henry Ford’s mass produced Model T automobile (Extreme Oil n.d.). It was Ford’s automobile that gave access to a family car for all Americans; this fuelled a large increase in the demand for petrol and in turn boosted oil production.
Natural gas was first produced in 1821 in Fredonia, New York when gas was found and piped through hollow logs to adjacent houses where it was primarily used as a form of light. However, gas manufactured from coal, known as manufactured gas, had been around for a while and lead to the formation of the Gas Light Company of Baltimore in 1816. It was Colonel Drake who, in 1859 found natural gas alongside oil just outside Titusville, Pennsylvania, an event that is said to have been the major milestone in creating the United States of America’s gas industry (History, 2004).
As much as fossil fuels have done for modern society, it undoes for the global population (every living organism) of the future every single minute of every day. The effects that fossil fuels have on the environmental health of our planet are so vast, so dangerous that it is said that we, in the calendar year of the planet’s existence, are currently at 11:59:59 on December 31(The 11th Hour 2007).
Coal mining is a dangerous and environmentally careless operation. 60% of coal is taken from surface mines, while the rest is taken from underground mines. Both types of mines carry a vast array of environmentally damaging effects (Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining: Fuel Supply 2009). Underground coal mining carries the danger to human lives as coal mines can collapse, as a result of improper internal support structures being put in place in order to replace the coal, as well as flood, as a result of aquifers being breached. Underground mining can also lead to what is commonly known as “the Black Lung” or mine workers’ pneumoconiosis; this is caused by the dust and soot that is created in the mining process. Many mine workers have lost their lives due to the lung disease (Environmental Literacy Council- Coal Mining 2009). Strip mining does not pose the same immediate danger to mine workers as underground mining, however, it poses a far greater threat to the environment above ground. Coal mining firms in Appalachia have been known to remove entire mountaintops in order to get their hands on the coal reserves bellow causing erosion, destroying the local habitat and polluting the air with the dust (Environmental Literacy Council- Coal Mining 2009); in West Virginia more than 300 000 acres of forest and 1600 kilometres of rivers have been destroyed as a direct result of the process involved in strip mining (Environmental Impacts of Coal Mining: Fuel Supply 2009). One cannot forget about the effect that the dust pollution will have on any nearby inhabitants, human and animal. Both forms of mining can lead to heavy metals and toxic sludge seeping into the soil and natural water supply, affecting the marine life of the area as well as the water that supplies nearby towns and the plant life of the area (Environmental Literacy Council- Coal Mining 2009). In past, coal mining released high volumes of SO2, or sulphur dioxide, as well as NOx, or nitrous oxide, which is known to lead to acid rain, smog and ground level ozone. The process still releases these gasses but because of the negative environmental effect that they have, every effort has gone into removing their emission in the process. One of these efforts is known as coal washing. Coal washing uses is exactly what it sounds like, coal is washed with specific chemicals, which act as cleaning agents, removing unnecessary particles of clay, sand and other non-coal elements. This process reduces the amount of ash created by burning the coal by up to 50%; this ultimately leads to less SO2 and less CO2 emissions, resulting in less air pollution (acid rain, mercury - World Coal Association. 2011). The most popular way of cleaning coal is utilised by in order to reduce the negative environmental effects that coal power stations can have, it is called Flue Gas Desulphurisation and makes use of electrostatic precipitators, fabric filters, wet scrubbers and hot gas filtration systems. The overall system uses limestone and other alkali minerals in order to remove SO2 from the coal (acid rain, mercury - World Coal Association. 2011).
Regardless of these efforts to cleanse coal prior to burning, coal is still considered to be a highly environmentally unfriendly source of energy. It contains trace elements such as mercury, selenium and arsenic. During the burning process, these trace elements brake off into tiny particles and are released into the air. Reiterating that, Arsenic, a known poisonous substance (Scientific Facts on Arsenic. 2011) that with it carries severe illness, is released into the environment as a direct result of coal mining and its subsequent burning for energy production (acid rain, mercury - World Coal Association. 2011). Another massive hindrance to the efforts to clean up coal is its waste management. Once the coal has been burned, it becomes a incombustible matter, there is not much than can be done with it and it is often taken back to where it came from in order to refill the land, but with absolutely no healthy minerals in it, it becomes a sort of “dead soil”. As rain water seeps through the coal waste it releases toxic chemicals left behind post combustion, contaminating the surrounding soil and ultimately the surrounding ecology (Environmental impacts of coal - SourceWatch. 2011).
Oil is produced in two main locales, onshore and offshore drilling. Both are similar in the physical aspect of extraction, but offer different dangers to the environment as well as to drillers. Firstly, onshore extraction is done in a three step process, primary recovery, secondary recovery and, if economically feasible, tertiary recovery (Susan Kristoff. 2011). Prior to these stages of recovery come the exploration stage and the reservoir penetration stage, which involves careful considerations as to the depths at which to drill (World of Earth Sciences. 2003).
Primary recovery is rather short lived, generally only extracting 5%-15% of the total oil in the reservoir. This is due to the fact that new wells are often pressurised by natural gas and underground structures, this pressure initially causes massive blowouts of oil but later allows for the oil to flow freely. Once enough oil has been extracted, the pressure will drop and the oil supply will taper off, this is when the secondary stage begins. Secondary recovery will typically provide 30%-50% of the oil supply. In order to counter the loss of pressure, water or gas is pumped into the oil reservoir that forces the oil out.
Tertiary recovery is done, if economically viable, by pumping carbon dioxide into the well that decreases viscosity of oil and allows for the remaining oil to seep out of rocks within the well (Kristoff, Susan. 2011). The majority of negative environmental effects of the onshore extraction process have been minimised by advancing technologies. The biggest impact by the actual process is that of the disturbance of the natural ecology due to the building of repair shops, landing strips, homes and industrial complexes in the immediate areas surrounding wells.
Secondly, Offshore extraction can occur anywhere up to 300km away from the land and up to 2,2km in depth. It is done via massive floating rigs and using similar techniques as onshore drilling. However, the environmental and economical costs of offshore drilling are far higher than those onshore. Due to the highly complex marine machinery as well as the logistical efforts required, the economic costs are highly inflated. Environmental effects are far worse as marine life is immediately affected. In order to discover oil reserves, cartographers produce seismic waves in order to provide a map of the ground below the ocean bed. These waves are known to cause whale and dolphin beaching to massive proportions, recently ExxonMobil were forced to halt their exploration efforts offshore of Madagascar after over 100 whales beached themselves (Nixon, Robin. 2008). I reiterate, only after this mass whale suicide. Other than that, oil spills have constantly caused massive destruction to marine life, most recently the BP leak in the Gulf of Mexico in which over 4,9 million barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf, the total damages of this spill are yet to be calculated, but the effects on the coastline and marine environments are highly evident (Hurley, Lawrence 2011). It is plausible to say that it is unclear whether or not the Gulf of Mexico will recover from such a disastrous consequence to humankind’s carelessness and disregard for the environment.
It is important to note the environmental effect of further use of oil. Refined gasoline (petrol) is the highest use of oil on a global scale. In 2005 the United States of America used, on average, 9,2million barrels, which equates to 1,45billion litres of petrol, each day. In contrast South Africa was using 30million litres per day. With the amounts of CO2 emissions released into the air everyday, it is not difficult to realise that our atmosphere, and our planet is in trouble.
The most common form of natural gas extraction utilises oil well drilling in order to release the gas that is often found in oil reservoirs. It is also extracted onshore and offshore (Extraction, 2004). An alternative, yet highly controversial, form of natural gas extraction is called hydraulic fracturing, more commonly known as fracking. Fracking is the process of exploiting shale gas reserves trapped in the underground rock formations. This is done by use of underground horizontal drilling that follows the shale formations and through numerous explosions the shale is fractured. Once fractured, the shale is blasted under incredibly high pressure with water, sand and highly toxic chemicals in order to release the gas (Fracking Up the Karoo 2011). A big concern amongst South African environmentalists and ecologists is that four massive oil and gas companies are bidding to commence fracking in the Karoo. Along with the local Karoo population, these environmentalists and ecologists are highly concerned regarding the environmental effect that this fracking will have. Firstly, due to the high toxicity of the chemicals used in the process, a lot of worry is revolving around the impact on the underground aquifers that are so heavily relied on in the water scarce area. The aquifers are likely to be contaminated by these chemicals; this poses a massive problem as these aquifers supply the entire Karoo with agricultural irrigation as well as drinking water (Fracking in the Karoo 2011). Not only does the process use highly toxic chemicals, it also uses vast amounts of water. In their bid for fracking rights, Shell Oil and Gas proposed that they would use seawater in the process; this is almost impossible as the seawater carries too high a saline concentration that would not bind with the chemicals. Shell also propose that they will truck the seawater inland, this will also cause damage to the fynbos environment which would not regenerate as quickly as most other fauna environments (Fracking Up the Karoo 2011).
Despite the environmental effects of the use of these fossil fuels, the global economic society continues to use them. The effects will ultimately be catastrophic and devastating to our planet and its inhabitants unless drastic changes are made in order to replace fossil fuels with renewable, alternative energy sources.
The above diagram demonstrates the percentage of fossil fuel energy consumption in relations to nuclear and renewable energy consumption on a global scale.
There are two primary opportunities for renewable energy sources in South Africa: Wind turbine power, and solar power; although with our vast coastline, tidal energy could be utilised but there is much confusion as to what system is most effective in delivering on tidal energy.
Wind energy is created through the use of wind turbines, these turbines rotate as the wind passes through them and this rotation then drives a generator that ultimately provides the electricity (How Does Wind Energy Work? 2011). Wind energy is difficult to produce in an urban setting due to the fact that the turbines used for the production thereof will not operate properly under turbulent wind conditions, caused by a rough terrain such as houses. This makes it difficult for the average citizen to make use thereof. However, South Africa has the potential to become a world leader in terms of wind energy, with its vast open lands and its high average annual wind speed. According to The Good News South Africa has been set to invest $1,2billion into wind power since 2009, with plans to create over 500Mw energy supply across Northern, Eastern and Western Cape (SA to invest $1.2bn in wind energy 2009). A cost effectiveness analysis of wind power generation suggests that a wind-powered generator will run at 20% of the daily cost of running a diesel generator (The cost of wind power 2008). This in collaboration with renewable energy subsidy systems, which are implemented in the United Kingdom, United States of America and Canada, if implemented in South Africa, could lead to a payback time of under three years.
In South Africa’s climate, it would absurd not to utilise the vast amount of sunlight: it is estimated that South Africa has an average of over 2500 hours of sunshine each year (South Africa solar energy 2011). Solar energy is created by what is known as photovoltaic cells, or more commonly known as solar panels. The photovoltaic cells receive sunlight and convert it into a direct current of about 12 volts, this current is then utilised to charge batteries that will run into a converter in order to power your house. Photovoltaic cells are becoming increasingly popular across domestic South Africa; despite the cost effectiveness of wind power, photovoltaic cells are still more popular. From a commercial point of view, solar energy can be used to create up to 20 megawatts of electricity. The most popular form of this mass energy production is called a Solar Tower, and Spain is one of the first countries to have constructed one. The 91 meters tall tower is situated in front of 624 photovoltaic heliostats that act as mirrors to reflect and intensify the sunshine at the top of the tower. These heliostats follow the sun in order to maintain the reflection on the top of the tower where the temperature is in the 400 degrees Celsius range; there are numerous pipes running through the top of the tower pumping water through which, as it reaches the top of the tower instantly vaporises into steam which in turn drives turbines which generate the electricity (James May’s Big Ideas 2008). The system has been highly effective in producing enough electricity to run the city of Seville, Spain. With South Africa’s climate, it is ideal for this type of energy production. After all, the sun has always been the most powerful source of energy for our planet.
It is utterly remarkable human society’s past disregard for the environment when in competition to capital gain, one could say that society is fulfilling a suicidal prophecy. It is feasible to assume that every human being is completely consumed by their life, the modern societal comforts, consumerist behaviour and selfish lifestyle, to such an extent that they are willingly killing their planet by constantly using fuels that have the potential to cause such intense environmental harm. This mind set could be equated to an addiction, such as smoking; is there really such a difference between lighting up a Marlboro Red, which will ultimately cause lung disease, and driving a 5l V6 SUV in the city? I cannot speak for myself, however, as I drive 200kms a week, use copious amounts of electricity, eat highly packaged food and do not recycle. I am, in fact, the ideal non-contributor to a greener, for lack of a better word, society. After going through a carbon footprint calculator, I calculated that my carbon footprint is 10,7 metric tonnes of CO2 emissions. I thus conclude that modern day society’s attitude toward the current and future environmental situation is not so much Human vs Nature, but more Human vs Human- consider that humans are the only species that kill each other.
References:
1. Unknown. (2009). How much fossil fuels are left? When will fossil fuels run out?. Available: http://green-energysaving.com/carbon-emissions/fossil-fuels/how-much-fossil-fuels-are-left-when-will-fossil-fuels-run-out/. Last accessed 30th April 2011.
2. Katy Doran. (n.d.). List of Fossil Fuels. Available: http://www.ehow.com/about_5445661_list-fossil-fuels.html. Last accessed 30th April 2011
3. Eric McLamb. (2008). The Evolution and Use of the World's Energy Systems. Available: http://www.ecology.com/features/secretworldofenergy/index.html. Last accessed 30th April 2011.
4. Jeremy Hinsdale. (n.d.). Extreme Oil. Available: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/extremeoil/history/1850.html. Last accessed 30th April 2011.
5. n/a. (2004). History. Available: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/history.asp. Last accessed 1st May 2011.
6. 11th Hour, 2007. [DVD] Nadia Conners, United States of America: Warner Independent Pictures
7. Environmental impacts of coal power: fuel supply | Union of Concerned Scientists. 2009. Environmental impacts of coal power: fuel supply | Union of Concerned Scientists. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02a.html. [Accessed 02 May 2011
8. The Environmental Literacy Council - Coal Mining. 2009. The Environmental Literacy Council - Coal Mining. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1122.html. [Accessed 02 May 2011]
9. acid rain, mercury - World Coal Association. 2011. acid rain, mercury - World Coal Association. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.worldcoal.org/coal-the-environment/coal-use-the-environment/. [Accessed 03 May 2011]
10. Scientific Facts on Arsenic. 2011. Scientific Facts on Arsenic. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.greenfacts.org/en/arsenic/index.htm. [Accessed 03 May 2011]
11. Environmental impacts of coal - SourceWatch. 2011. Environmental impacts of coal - SourceWatch. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_impacts_of_coal. [Accessed 03 May 2011]
12. Susan Kristoff. 2011. Oil Extraction and Other Petroleum Extraction Methods. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.suite101.com/content/oil-drilling-and-other-petroleum-extraction-methods-a344908. [Accessed 02 May 11]
13. World of Earth Sciences. 2003. Petroleum Extraction. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437800460.html. [Accessed 02 May 11].
14. Robin Nixon. 2008. Oil Drilling: Risks and Rewards. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.livescience.com/4979-oil-drilling-risks-rewards.html. [Accessed 02 May 11]
15. Lawrence Hurley. 2011. The New York Times: Assessment of Gulf Spill's Damage Submerged in Murky Legal Waters. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/04/20/20greenwire-assessment-of-gulf-spills-damage-submerged-in-60572.html. [Accessed 02 May 11]
16. Natural Gas.org. 2004. Extraction. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/extraction.asp. [Accessed 02 May 11].
17. Icologie.com. 2011. Fracking in the Karoo. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.icologie.com/news/fracking-in-the-karoo/. [Accessed 02 May 11].
18. Carte Blanche. (2011). Fracking Up the Karoo. [Online Video]. 20 February. Available from:http://beta.mnet.co.za/carteblanche/Article.aspx?Id=4290&ShowId=1. [Accessed: 02 May 2011].
19. RenewableUK - How Does Wind Energy Work?. 2011. RenewableUK - How Does Wind Energy Work?. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bwea.com/energy/how.html. [Accessed 04 May 2011]
20. The Good News. 2009. SA to invest $1.2bn in wind energy. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.sagoodnews.co.za/environment/sa_to_invest_1.2bn_in_wind_energy.html. [Accessed 03 May 11]
21. Kestrelwind.co.za. 2008. The cost of wind power. [ONLINE] Available at:http://www.kestrelwind.co.za/news_article.asp?ID=212. [Accessed 03 May 11].
22. South Africa Solar Energy - Free Information. 2011. South Africa Solar Energy - Free Information. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.totalsolarenergy.co.uk/south-africa-solar-energy.html. [Accessed 04 May 2011
23. James May's Big Ideas. (2008). James May's Big Ideas. [Online Video]. 28 September. Available from:http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7z29w_big-ideas-ep-3-1-3-come-fly-with-me_tech. [Accessed: 02 May 2011]
24. N/A. Carbonfootprint.com. Carbon Footprint Calculator. (2011). Available from: http://www.carbonfootprint.com/calculator.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment