Environmental Issues in the Energy Sector - Literature review Example

Environmental Issues in the Energy Sector Issue 7 - Offshore drilling is controversial because of two main issues ly economy and environmental impact. According to Easton (2011), proponents of offshore drilling during the time of the Bush administration considered it justified for reasons of assuring continued oil supply, reducing dependence on foreign sources, and relieving the government of problems caused by a growing balance of payments while critics focus on risks to the environment (p.133). Stephen Baird and Mary Annette Rose come from opposing sides of the issue of offshore drilling. There are three main areas in their arguments: temperatures and pressures of subsea oil, effects of weather problems such as hurricanes; and leaks. Baird explained that new technologies today can guarantee and help oil companies’ efforts to prevent disasters (Easton, 2011). Handling temperatures and pressures of subsea oil can easily be monitored through the use of sensors and other instruments even during drilling (p. 135). But Rose argues that even though modern technology, research and monitoring systems have reduced the frequency of ecological catastrophes, still, there are factors that can cause oil-well blowout from high-pressure and high-temperature which can result to emission of buoyant plume of oil, producing water and methane (p. 141). Baird stated that “hurricanes have become manageable, with oil lines now being capped at or beneath the ocean floor” (p. 135). But aside from oil lines on and beneath the ocean floor, Rose said Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed 115 platforms, spilling roughly 17,700 barrels of petroleum and 25,110 barrels of mixed crude oil from above-ground storage tanks in Louisiana (p. 141-142). Petroleum leaks, Baird said, can now be restrained by industrial seals (p. 135). Although this is the case, the problem does not stop at petroleum leaks. Rose argues that another disturbing impact of offshore oil is the volume and type of wastes, such as produced water, drilling fluids, cuttings, diesel emissions, and chemicals associated with operating mechanical, hydraulic, and electrical equipment (p. 142). Even with modern technology, we cannot guarantee that offshore drilling can withstand the force of God, which include hurricanes and other natural disasters, and human errors. Modern technology cannot reverse the destructive environmental impacts of offshore drilling gone wrong. It is better for us to find alternative sources which are safer for the environment and for the people’s health. Protecting the environment does not mean we are less concerned about protecting the country from economic problems, but other alternative sources can lower oil imports and thus save our country from further spending. Issue 8 - The release of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to global warming and is thus a danger to the well-being of human beings. To ease global warming, either people refrain from using fossil fuel as an energy source or capture carbon dioxide before it reaches the atmosphere (Easton, 2011, p. 148). In carbon capture technology, the debate is not about the existence of the said technology but on their sustainability, safety and viability in being stored underground indefinitely (p. 149). In a nutshell, there are three issues surrounding the debate between David Hawkins and Charles Schmidt – the availability of technology, safety concerns and the political will to end the use of coal (Easton, 2011, p. 149-150). Hawkins maintains that the technology to capture carbon emissions are already existing and can already be utilized while Schmidt contends that the available technology is not yet technically and financially viable to be utilized in a major scale (p. 149). Anent to this issue is the question on safety, while Hawkins maintain that the technology on safety concerns are already feasible, Schmidt contends that there is still no assurance that carbon dioxide can be stored and can remain in containment underground indefinitely. He also adds that there are still no clear guidelines on who will be responsible in monitoring and take the blame if storage fails (p. 149). Regarding the last discussion point, Hawkins states that the coal power industry is projected to entail at least $5 trillion investments to put up power plants in the next 25 years in order to support the project power demands worldwide (p. 151). As there is a growing need to put up more plants to support the growing power needs of the world, Hawkins maintains that there is an immediate need to set up carbon capture devices to reduce pollution and mitigate climate change effects brought about by coal burning (p. 154). Schmidt takes a parallel position to Hawkins in stating that coal power in China alone accounts for 80% of the power source of the country, with little or no regard to its health effects (p. 166). As such, he maintains that while industry is projecting the need to put up carbon capture ready plants, they are allocating little or no budget for research into this field and are even setting up plants even before regulation is passed (p. 167). Given the arguments of both experts, only one thing is clear, there is a need to initiate carbon capture technology to minimize the effects on climate change. However, I must agree with Schmidt’s position that unless there is a clear policy on who will take responsibility for monitoring and maintaining carbon dioxide storage facilities, it should not be implemented first. Secondly, the technology is not yet clear cut and viable at a large scale. While there is a need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, I agree that it is not the whole solution to the climate change issue as Schmidt has stated (Easton, 2011, p. 170). There is still the necessity to define and identify the technology, safety issues and alternatives to carbon capture. Issue 9 - Geothermal energy comes from heated rocks in the earth’s heated zones the heat from these rocks heats up surface water or ground water. The superheated steam produced is coursed through pipes and pumps which turn turbines, generating electricity. Geothermal energy experts point out to three main issues regarding this resource. First, whether it can supply 20% of the US power needs by the year 2030, the feasibility of available technology to tap deep underground geothermal resources 3 to 10 kilometers underground and a question on maintenance of the underground pipes (Easton, 2011, p. 172). Susan Petty takes the position that geothermal energy can supply the needs of the US by 2030 as the technology is already available (Easton, 2011, p. 178) while Alexander Karsner maintains that it is only attainable by the year 2050 as there is still a need for a 15 year period of research and development before the projections can be realistic (p. 180). In connection to the feasibility of tapping these resources, Petty states that the energy source is abundant and everywhere, like the “Ring of Fire” (p. 173). She adds that the technology of drilling to depths more than 3 kilometers is already commercially available and can already be utilized (p. 174). Karsner however contends that the US only has technology to tap hydrothermal sources and that tapping deeper geothermal sources are not yet commercially viable (p. 180) and that in order to achieve this technology, there is still a 15 year period needed to develop the necessary technology and testing (p. 183). In terms of maintenance, only Petty points out that the operation of a geothermal plant requires the same number of people for a 10 MW as well as a 250 MW facility (p. 175). Both experts agree that geothermal energy is feasible and is ‘green technology’. However, I must agree with Karsner on the need to develop additional technology and verification prior to it being utilized. True that geothermal power has long been used worldwide, but the new sources for the energy that remains to be tapped are located far underground which would entail a different degree in technological development. Issue 10 - During the 1973 Oil Crisis, highway speed limits were reduced. Increase in sales of foreign cars at the expense of American-made cars prompted US Congress to pass the Energy and Policy Conservation Act of 1975. Included in the Act was the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) program, with the goal of doubling average fuel efficiency by 1985. New fuel efficiency standards were required, prompting manufacturers to improve the performance of drive trains and engines and develop lighter materials for bodies (Easton, 2011. p.187). David Friedman argues that technology to improve fuel efficiency standards for new cars and trucks exists; improved efficiency can cut oil imports, save money, create jobs, and reduce global warming, and lastly, more fuel-efficient vehicles are actually safer to drive, citing several reports, one of which is David Greene and Sanjana Ahmad’s The Effect of Fuel economy on Automobile Safety: A Reexamination stating that “higher mpg is significantly correlated with fewer fatalities”. These reports, according to Friedman, back up the ability of Congress in setting higher fuel economy targets while maintaining highway security (Easton, 2011, p. 189, 192). On the other hand, Charli Coon argues that the 1975 CAFÉ program failed to meet its goals of reducing oil imports and gasoline consumption, which contradicts Friedman’s argument that improved efficiency can cut oil imports and save money. Further, Coon said the program has endangered human lives, citing a 1989 study by economists Robert Crandall and John Graham stating that “the negative relationship between weight and occupant fatality risk is one of the most secure findings in the safety literature” (p 197). Coon finally stated that the program needs to be replaced with market-based solutions to reduce high gasoline consumption and rising prices (p 187, 196). Oil imports have increased from about 35 percent in the mid-1970s to 52 percent today and consumption increased because consumers take advantage of the so called fuel efficiency of their vehicles. According to him, deciding to increase fuel economy standards and imposing it to manufacturers would be a mistake and that Congress should consider repealing them instead (p 196). I agree with Coon that increasing fuel economy is not the solution. A careful study of the CAFÉ program and repealing them, with changes that will best suit today’s situation, taking into consideration the population and their attitude towards fuel energy consumption. Issue 11- The article entitled “No need to end offshore drilling” tackles offshore drilling in terms of its roles in America’s economic prosperity and energy security, and the global race for energy resources. This energy play by China, according to the authors is important because the US is already dependent on other countries for its energy needs. Energy, the authors further stated is one area in which politicians’ short-term political gains put our nation’s future at risk (DiMicco and Boone Pickens, 2010, p. 1). The authors stated that ending offshore drilling would be a mistake for America’s future prosperity and the issue of having both offshore drilling and clean shores at the same time being not possible is not true. According to them, having abundant energy resources such as the “100-year supply of natural gas from reserves both on land and offshore”, the government and the industry need only to develop safer and smarter practices (DiMicco and Boone Pickens, 2010, p.1). Offshore drilling, they further stated, together with other energy resources such as natural gas, new nuclear power plants and production of energy from renewable resources like wind, solar and biomass can create millions of jobs, will reduce the country’s budget deficit and put the country’s fiscal house in order (p. 2). While what the authors say is true about what offshore drilling can do to the country’s economy, we cannot deny that there still exist dangers in spite of safer and smarter practices. The resources that we rely on, specifically oil will be depleted after years of extraction and we do not know it is possible effects on the planet’s composition if it happens. It is still best to turn our attention to renewable resources which is safer and healthier not only for us humans but for the planet as well. References DiMicco, Dan and Boone Pickens, T. (2010). No need to end offshore drilling. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39977_Page2.html Easton, T. A. (2011). Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (14th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Read More