Alternative Fuel Benefits - Literature review Example

Alternative Fuel Benefits According to all peer-reviewed scientific studies, if the amount of greenhouse gasses being pumped into the air by factories, power plants and automobiles is not severely curtailed and soon, the earth and its inhabitants will suffer cataclysmic consequences in the near future. Switching to alternative forms of electric power and fuel may greatly help avert disaster. Global warming is a term commonly used to describe the consequences of man- made pollutants overloading the naturally-occurring greenhouse gases causing an increase of the average global temperature, the subject of great debate and concern worldwide. This discussion will then discuss the feasibility of various alternative fuels which if implemented on a wide scale would greatly reduce air pollution and possibly avoid the predicted outcome, alternative energy from bio-fuels, hydrogen, solar and nuclear sources. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the most prevalent of the greenhouse gases. The major contributor (70 percent) of man-generated CO2 release is the emission from those motor vehicles that are powered by fossil fuels. The solution to automobile emissions may lie in alternative fuels. The conversion of beets or corn into ethanol is touted by scientists today as an economically and environmentally sound solution to global warming concerns. However, this is not a new revelation. Rudolf Fiesel, fifteen years after the invention named after him, was quoted in 1897 as saying “The use of vegetable oils for engine fuels may seem insignificant today. But such oils may become, in the course of time, as important as petroleum and the coal products of the present time” (Boles, 2005). Promising future alternatives to crude oil, vegetable oil can be substituted for diesel fuel while ethanol is an effective petrol additive. Ethanol is a type of alcohol that can be made using crops such as sugar beets, wheat or corn. As a fuel additive, ethanol boosts octane and substantially reduces toxic carbon monoxide emissions. Bio-fuels are derived from an easily replenished source and emit no pollutants into the air. The most common type, Ethanol, has the ability to be mixed with petrol and bio-diesel, a vegetable oil, can be burned in diesel engines without engine modification. This type of ‘green’ fuel can at least be a bridge to the future of energy production and consumption as it can, unlike hydrogen, be used in existing engines. Another benefit of bio-fuels is the peripheral advancement of the agricultural industry. Unfortunately, it takes considerably more energy (from high-grade petrol) to create ethanol than it produces. It takes about 70 percent more energy to make a liter of ethanol than is contained in a liter of ethanol. In addition, fossil fuel is used in the production of corn or any crop used for ethanol and by “increasing ethanol production will increase degradation of vital agricultural and water resources and will seriously contribute to the pollution of the environment” (Pimentel, 1998, p. 5). Energy from hydrogen, an environmentally friendly gas is a much discussed energy source. Iceland is already well on its way to becoming the first nation to generate its power needs by means of hydrogen fuel-cells. A fuel cell is a silently running battery that is continually refilling while generating an electrical current by introducing hydrogen to oxygen, a combination that produces energy. Though hydrogen powered means of transport are not accessible to the public as yet, they are past the initial research and development phase and are presently being demonstrated for both heavy and light-duty load applications. Hydrogen, the ‘H’ in H2O, is, not surprisingly, found in water. The resource is boundless and instead of emitting CO2, hydrogen emits only water vapor. Extracting hydrogen, however, is a costly undertaking at present and is flammable giving concern to safety during transport. “The more widely used method is to split the hydrocarbons in fossil fuels into hydrogen and carbon. This is much cheaper but it defeats the point somewhat as it still uses fossil fuels and creates carbon dioxide as a by-product” (“Alternatives to Oil”, 2002). Geothermal energy comes directly from the earth as steam and used to power electric producing plants as well as other less complex applications. This energy source is plentiful, sustainable and affordable way to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. In California, geothermal energy supplies approximately five percent of total electric usage, 25 percent in the Central American country of El Salvador. Iceland uses its vast resources of geothermal heat to warm many of its buildings and other power applications. The State of Idaho is also a large consumer of this naturally occurring power source from the earth. The benefits are being utilized all across the nation. “In thousands of homes and buildings across the United States, geothermal heat pumps use the steady temperatures just underground to heat and cool buildings, cleanly and inexpensively. Geothermal energy has the potential to play a significant role in moving the United States (and other regions of the world) toward a cleaner, more sustainable energy system” (“Geothermal Energy”, 2006). Solar power is widely used and is projected to be becoming a prolific energy source for the future. Today, solar energy supplies electric power to hundreds of thousand of people worldwide. More than ten thousand are employed in the solar energy market that produces revenues of at least $1 billion dollars. The advantages of solar power are obvious. It is an abundant, non-polluting and free energy resource as long as the sun shines. The sun provides the earth with 10,000 times more energy than its people consume, however, this resource remains essentially unexploited. At present, its expense is prohibitive for most consumers but this is changing with time. “Solar power is a prime choice in developing an affordable, feasible, global power source that is able to substitute for fossil fuels in all climate zones around the world” (“Solar Generation”, 2003). If the people and nations of the world seriously want to end the burning of fossil fuels and halt the acceleration of global warming, renewable energy and alternative fuels must be quickly employed on a much larger scale. However, these two forms of energy alone will not be able to supplant coal and oil as the prevalent power sources and the levels of CO2 will continue to rise. Scientists have warned that if drastic steps are not taken now, the effects of global warming will soon become irreversible and the global temperatures will continue to rise regardless of future steps to reduce harmful emissions. Therefore, nuclear power facilities should quickly be built replace coal burning electric plants. “Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable and competitive energy source. It is the only source of energy that can replace a significant part of the fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) which massively pollute the atmosphere and contribute to the greenhouse effect” (Comby, 2006). Nuclear plants could provide all the electricity that would power all businesses and residences and will also provide the power for electric cars. Nuclear power is the only viable substitute that could replace the massive power needs of the planet and could be built in time to save the planet. The environmentalists who oppose nuclear power plants should realize that this may be the only way to avoid the looming affects of irreversible global warming. The concern primarily revolves around the disposal of nuclear waste. “Nuclear waste is to be deposited in deep geological storage sites; it does not enter the biosphere. Its impact on the ecosystems is minimal. An intelligent combination of energy conservation, and renewable energies for local low-intensity applications, and nuclear energy for base-load electricity production, is the only viable way for the future” (Comby, 2006). Some point to the potential deaths resulting from nuclear plant accidents. To date, only the Chernobyl melt-down caused deaths. Compare the safety record of nuclear power plants to the safety record of coal mines. If protecting the environment from nuclear waste is the concern, consider that oil tankers spill millions of gallons of oil into the seas every year. Clearly, nuclear power is the best and may be the only option for curtailing global warming, if it is widely employed very soon. Nuclear energy has been proven safe and waste is negligible. “Nuclear energy produces no CO2 and the volume of nuclear waste produced is very small, a typical family’s use of nuclear energy over a whole lifetime produces vitrified waste the size of a golf ball” (Comby, 2006). The opponents to the regulation of greenhouse gasses including the Bush administration has claimed this action would be too costly to business therefore hurt the economy. Auto companies in particular lobby against regulating automobile emissions claiming that it is not economically feasible for them. This is simply untrue because countries such as Japan, Korea and China have much stricter emission standards than the U.S. yet these country’s car sales are up while U.S. automakers are down. The economic consequence of doing nothing is far greater than solving the problem through legislation. If ‘we’ choose not to do anything or to insist a problem does not exist, there will cease to be a ‘we’ as weather patterns become overtly hostile and air, water and food supplies will either become non-existent or too poisonous to sustain life. If the earth cannot sustain human life, the automakers will not make any money. Maybe that is an argument they can understand. source: Climate Justice Campaign Fossil fuel’s contribution to global warming References “Alternatives to Oil.” (2002). Disposable Planet? BBC News UK. Retrieved February 9, 2008 from Boles, Tracey & Orange, Richard. (October 3, 2005). “Where Do You Get Your Energy From?: Latest on Alternative Liquid Fuels.” The Business. Comby, Bruno. (October 2, 2006). “The Benefits of Nuclear Energy.” TNR Editions. Retrieved February 9, 2008 from “Geothermal Energy: Tapping the Energy in the Earth’s Core.” (2006). Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI). Retrieved February 9, 2008 from Pimentel, D. “Energy and Dollar Costs of Ethanol Production with Corn.” (1998). Hubbert Center Newsletter. Vol. 98, I. 2, M, King Hubbert Center for Petroleum Supply Studies “Solar Generation Report.” Greenpeace. (July 10, 2003). Retrieved February 9, 2008 from Chart: “What Are the Sources of Greenhouse Gases?” (November 10, 2005). Climate Justice Campaign Retrieved February 9, 2008 from Read More