energy PROBLEM SOLVERS become THE PROBLEM or the environmental impact of "renewable energy"
This morning I did read an article (1) on birds evaporating when flying through the mirrored beams of a new solar park with mirrors reflecting onto a boiler, a project financed by Google in an American dessert... (2)
Being an advocate of environmental sound solutions for our habitat, I have been aware of the negative side of so called 'renewable energy' (scientifically speaking a sham notion) alternatives... so I made three picture combinations of energy alternatives (solar, wind, hydro energy), now united in one picture, a quick & dirty triptych on PROBLEM SOLVERS that have become a PROBLEM in themselves, because of the impact of their enlarged and multiplied scale...
The euphemisms used for these acres of solar and wind energy are 'wind-parks' and 'spar-parks' similar energy from water, hydro-energy had been baptised in its initial medium scale stages last century as 'white coal' ... these industrial solvers of our ENERGY PROBLEM are presented to us with words that sound positive and harmless, while the environmental effects can be disastrous. The issue of scale and non destructive environmental integration are elements our societies are losing sight off, again and again over the centuries. (3)
----
(1) The original article in a Dutch daily (Trouw) led me to this source "Emerging desert solar plants scorch birds in midair"
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/18/a-birds-eye-view-of-the-bi...
(2) Een vriend van mij al jaren gespecialiseerd in milieu, techniek en wetenschap attendeerde mij op zijn artikel van 24/4/2014 in de NRC: "Piloten verblind door reusachtige zonnecentrale"
www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/april/23/energie-piloten-...
(3) There is a huge amount of studies and comments on this issue, I choose just one reference here:
"All energy sources have some impact on our environment. Fossil fuels — coal, oil, and natural gas — do substantially more harm than renewable energy sources by most measures, including air and water pollution, damage to public health, wildlife and habitat loss, water use, land use, and global warming emissions. // It is still important, however, to understand the environmental impacts associated with producing power from renewable sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower.
read on via: www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-...
A more theoretical approach on the issue raised in this simple triptych can be found in a scientific publication published in the year 2003, that describes in a fairly abstract language the issue of how then to make a choice from the energy options available. I cite here in extenso form the concluding chapter:
"Renewables, Sustainability and Precaution: Beyond Environmental Cost—Benefit and Risk Analysis - by ANDREW STIRLING"
[Hester, R. E., and Roy M. Harrison. 2003. Sustainability and environmental impact of renewable energy sources. Cambridge, U.K.: Royal Society of Chemistry. www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=1227. ; p. 113. www.worldcat.org/oclc/223482990 ]
"A pressing need therefore arises for robust ways to inform policies aimed at the pursuit of sustainable energy strategies. In the energy sector, as elsewhere, there currently exists a state of considerable ambiguity and tension around what are held to be two quite distinct approaches to regulatory appraisal. Should the assessment of the relative sustainability of different energy options be based exclusively on particular well-known scientific and technical considerations, or should it be more 'precautionary'—paying greater attention to scientific uncertainties and social and cultural factors? Although this paper will argue that the distinction is misleading, this dichotomy between 'scientific' and 'precautionary' approaches is a high-profile feature of general debates on sustainability—and the energy sector is no exception." [Ibid.; p. 113.]
"For its part, a 'precautionary' approach reflects a rather different perspective, introducing a wider range of emerging issues in the general sustainability debate. At root, a precautionary approach contrasts with the more reductive 'risk-based' approach in extending equal attention to those effects that may be less readily quantifiable. It addresses themes such as complexity, variability and the potential for non-linear vulnerabilities in natural and social systems. It highlights the consequent potential for 'surprises' affecting all manner of options. Precaution places greater emphasis on active and dynamic choices between technology and policy alternatives than do 'risk-based' approaches. It makes a point of including a wider range of social and political values, rather than those that happen to be embodied in the relatively narrow community of technical specialists. Precaution involves notions that 'prevention is better than cure', that 'the polluter should pay', that options offering simultaneously better economic and environmental performance should always be preferred ('no regrets'), that options should be appraised at the level of production systems taken as a whole and that attention should be extended to the intrinsic value of non-human life in its own right. In effect, precaution is variously taken to mean the adoption of greater humility about scientific knowledge, a recognition of the vulnerability of the natural environment, the prioritizing of the rights of those who stand to be adversely affected by environmental risks. In this way, a 'precautionary approach' introduces an apparently formidable array of additional issues to more conventional 'risk-based' approaches to the appraisal of energy sustainability. This ambiguity, breadth and ambition of precautionary approaches present a number of challenges. In particular, there are concerns in many quarters that a precautionary approach to regulatory appraisal involves the diluting—or even sacrificing—of the clarity, rigour and practical utility of 'risk-based' techniques like cost—benefit analysis and risk assessment." [Ibid.; p. 114.]
"First, the impacts associated with different generating technologies may differ radically in the forms which they take. Some may be more manifest as risks of death, others as injury or disease (e.g. offshore wind and wave versus biomass). They may differ in the immediacy or latency of their impacts (e.g. retrofit rooftop solar arrays versus nuclear power). The effects of some options may be concentrated in a few large events, whereas others may spread across a larger number of smaller incidents (e.g. nuclear power versus coal). Effects of different options may vary in the degree to which they are reversible (e.g. nuclear and fossil fuels versus wind power).
(...) Second, the impacts caused by different energy options also differ in terms of their distribution across space, through society and is it better that impacts of a given magnitude be geographically concentrated or dispersed (e.g. wind versus fossil fuels)? This also raises issues concerning the 'fairness' of the distribution of impacts across different groups and the way this correlates (or not) with the distribution of the benefits arising from the operation of the investments concerned. Particularly intractable difficulties emerge in contemplating the distribution of risks through time (e.g. nuclear and fossil fuels versus renewables), and the balance between burdens which fall on human and non-human life (e.g. biomass versus gas), workers and the general public (e.g. offshore wind versus oil) or on communities already affected by other environmental burdens (e.g. urban waste to energy versus domestic photovoltaics).
(...)
Third, the risks of different electricity supply options also impact differently on the autonomy of those affected. Exposure to the effects of some technologies is more voluntary than is the case for others (e.g. DIY energy efficiency versus centralized coal power). Likewise, different effects vary in their familiarity and the degree to which they are controllable (e.g. nuclear versus wind). Further serious, complex and pervasive issues are raised in considering the trust that should be placed in the communities and institutions associated with the operation of the different options and the appraisal results which they obtain (e.g. nuclear versus hydro)." [Ibid.; p. 119.]
"Different studies include and exclude different categories of effect. Hohmeyer's 1988 cost—benefit study for the European Commission' excludes aesthetic effects, thereby omitting a factor widely regarded as the most serious single environmental impact of wind power. The 1990 Ottinger study" does address aesthetic impacts, but omits to account for occupational safety risks, another effect that is sometime argued to be important in assessing wind power."'" [Ibid.; p. 122.]
"For instance, to what extent should analysis be based on well-documented past empirical data relating to possibly outdated options, superseded practices or irrelevant circumstances, or to what extent should it make use of theoretical models of performance based on extrapolations, projections and untested assumptions? How should individual unquantifiable aspects of risk be taken into account? Even where they are fully quantifiable, there is the question of the relative priority that should be attached to the different factors in the aggregation of effects such as toxicity, carcinogenicity, allergenicity, occupational safety, biodiversity or ecological integrity. What relative weight should properly be placed on impacts to different groups, such as workers, children, pregnant and breastfeeding mothers, future generations, disadvantaged communities, foreigners, those who do not benefit from the technology in question or even to animals and plants as beings in their own right? Even if they were practically feasible, objectives such as completeness or comprehensiveness do not assist in addressing issues of framing and prioritization of this kind. No one set of assumptions or priorities may be claimed to be uniquely rational, complete or comprehensive. It is this which constitutes the problem of incommensurability, a classic and well-explored dilemma in the field of social choice, but one that is frequently forgotten in regulatory appraisal. For it is a fundamental consequence of the axioms of utilitarian rationality that underlie both risk assessment and cost—benefit analysis that neither technique has developed definitive ways to resolve the difficulty of comparing apples and oranges. Even the most optimistic of proponents of rational choice acknowledge that there is no effective way to compare the intensities of preferences displayed by different individuals or groups in society." [Ibid.; p. 123.]
"Put simply, the point is that 'it takes all sorts to make a world'. Different cultural groups, political constituencies or economic interests typically attach different degrees of importance to the different aspects of energy sustainability and look at them differently. Within the bounds defined by the domain of plural social discourse, no one set of values or framings can definitively be ruled more 'rational' or 'well informed' than many others. Even were there to be complete certainty in the quantification of all the various classes and dimensions of sustainability, it is entirely reasonable that fundamentally different conclusions over environmental risk might be drawn under different—but equally legitimate— perspectives. It is a matter of the 'science' of rational choice itself, then, that there can be no 'analytical fix' for the problems posed by complexity and subjectivity in the appraisal of sustainability. It is ironic that the application of 'scientific' techniques such as risk and cost—benefit analysis should so often neglect such a fundamental result arising from their own underlying 'scientific' first principles." [Ibid.; p. 124.]
"It is at this point that it is useful to return to the earlier discussion in this chapter of the profound importance of the condition of ignorance, and incommensurability in regulatory appraisal. It was shown there that questions over the scope of appraisal, the plurality of different value positions and framing assumptions, the diversity of different anticipated possibilities and the degree of confidence placed in the available knowledge are all matters that are central to the 'scientific' status of the appraisal process. It flows directly from the theoretical foundations of risk assessment, cost—benefit analysis (and, indeed, all rational choice approaches to decision making on risk) that probabilistic approaches are inapplicable under strict uncertainty and ignorance. It also follows equally directly from these fundamental theoretical principles that different priorities, framing assumptions and value systems cannot be definitively aggregated across divergent social perspectives. For both these reasons, it is clear that there can be no analytical fix in assessing the sustainability of a series of different technology or policy options. All that can be done to respect principles of scientific rigour in appraisal is to ensure that the process is as broadly framed as possible in terms of the value systems and framing assumptions that are included and the options and possibilities that are addressed." [Ibid.; p. 130.]
A more recent study, published in the year 2012 does sum up some up several of the negative effects of the three types of renewable energy generation, shown here, I have made aselection of this summing up... reading the full chapter can be done by checking the worldcat link... which shwos you were to find this book:
"The global attention has always been focused on the impact of conventional energy sources on the environment. In contrast, the renewable energy sources have enjoyed a ''clean'' image for sustainable environment. The only major exception to this general trend is the large hydropower projects; experience has taught us that they can be disastrous for the environment. The belief now is that minihydel and microhydel projects are harmless alternatives.
(...)
Photovoltaic System (...)
Land Requirement The land for PV (photovoltaic) systems should be situated in areas receiving high solar radiation and wind velocity. The land should be inexpensive and unfertilised. The lands are not usable for agriculture or do not have a forest cover. Further, it is required to locate the PV systems not too distant from population centres in order to reduce transmission/distribution losses and expenses on installing transmission lines. (...) It has been estimated that central photovoltaic-based systems require large quantities of exotic inputs, which are toxic and/or explosive such as cadmium sulfide. (...) Materials used in PV systems create health and safety hazards for workers coming in contact with them. The manufacture of solar (photovoltaic) cells often requires hazardous materials such as arsenic and cadmium. Relatively inert silicon is a major material used in solar cells; it is hazardous to workers if it is breathed in as dust.Workers involved in manufacturing photovoltaic modules and components must consequently be protected from exposure to these materials.
(...)
Solar Thermal Power Plant (...)
The large amount of land is required for solar thermal power plants. One square kilometer for every 20–60 MW is required. This poses the problem, especially where wildlife protection is a concern. Most of the sites used for solar thermal power plants are in arid desert areas. (...) Solar thermal power plant projects have the usual environmental impacts such as landscape, effects on local ecosystems and habitats, noise and visual intrusion, and temporarily pollutant emissions. Parabolic-trough and central-tower systems using conventional steam plant to generate electricity require the use of cooling water. This creates a problem for water resources in arid areas. There may be some pollution of water resources through thermal discharges and accidental release of plant chemicals used in heat exchangers. The accidental release of heat transfer fluids (water and oil) from parabolic-trough and central-receiver systems form health hazards. The hazard may be substantial in some central-tower systems. In this case they use liquid sodium or molten salt as a heattransfer medium. A fatal accident can occur in a system using liquid sodium. These dangers may be avoided by moving to volumetric systems with the use of air as a heat transfer medium. Central-tower systems have the potential to concentrate light to intensities that could damage eyesight. Under normal operating conditions, this should not pose any danger to operators. But failure of the tracking systems could result in stray beams that might pose an occupational safety risk on site.
(...)
Hydropower Plant
Major ecological impacts are caused by hydropower projects in all the four habitats associated with the projects. These are the reservoir catchment, the artificially created lake, the downstream reaches of the dammed driver and the estuary into which the river flows. The environmental stresses are caused by (i) altered timing of river flow, (ii) increased evapotranspiration and seepage water losses, (iii) barriers to aquatic organism movement, (iv) thermal stratification, (v) changes in sediment loading and nutrient levels and (vi) loss of terrestrial habitat to artificial lake habitat. The nesting, mating and other behaviour of riparian organisms are affected as a result of altered river flow and barriers to movement. Impounding and increased human activity in the reservoir catchment leads to deforestation and loss of wildlife. There is often an increase in the incidence of waterborne diseases. Above all, the damming is associated with serious problems of rehabilitation of persons living in the reservoir area. (...)
Large hydropower plants require large reservoir and discharge areas. Many people have to be evacuated to make room for hydropower plants. This leads to a completely new situation for people who have lived in a relatively small and protected environment. The housing, land distribution, working conditions and way of life of affected people change radically. Social consequences are also likely to felt by dislocated people if the population concerned should be pressured into settling down in ecologically vulnerable areas. The sociocultural conditions together with their traditional connection to land, water and other natural resources tend to make them unadaptable to changes and new activities.
Large hydropower plants can increase the extent of water-related diseases to people leaving nearby (like cholera, dysentery and several tapeworm and round worm diseases). The reservoir may improve the living and breeding conditions of disease-causing organisms namely pathogens and their intermediate hosts. Reservoirs with a large volume of stagnant water offer favorable living conditions to pathogens. If the reservoir is employed for irrigation, industrial and drinking water supply, there may be the risk of infection spread by pathogens living in the water. Such infection may spread over large areas.
(...)
Wind Energy
Wind energy is one of the renewable sources of energy without air or water pollution. It involves no toxic and hazardous substances and poses no threat to public safety. It has concern over the visibility and noise of wind turbines and their impacts on wilderness areas. (...)
The wind turbines need to be spread over a wide range area to collect large amounts of energy from the wind. Each is positioned not to interfere with another turbine. Spacing is particularly important to large wind farms. The turbines are typically separated by distances of five to ten rotor diameters. The total land areas used by a wind farm are for foundations, access roads and substations. It is typically around 1% of the dispersed land area of a wind farm. The rest can be used for other purposes. Wind power development is more ideal to farming areas. Wind power development also creates serious land-use conflicts in forested areas. It is required to clear many trees causing a heavy monetary burden. Wind projects often run into stiff opposition from people who regard them as noisy and who fear that their presence may reduce property value near populated areas. There are two principal sources of noise from wind turbines: (i) Mechanical sources: such as from the gearbox, generator and auxiliary motors and (ii) Aerodynamic source: from the blades due to passage of the air. Generally, noise is most audible close to the turbine at low speeds. As the wind speed increases, the background noise from the wind in the trees, grass and bushes tends to dominate. Revolving blades generate noise to be heard in the immediate vicinity of the installation. However, noise does not travel too far. Some of the noise is of infrasound generated by wind turbines at frequencies below the audible range. This infrasound may cause houses and other structures to vibrate. These low-frequency waves can be eliminated in new buildings after careful design considerations. The impacts of wind farms on local bird populations have serious concerns. The large numbers of birds might fly into the spinning rotor blades and be killed. Analysis of a 1.5-MW coastal wind farm in the Netherlands concluded that the wind turbines were far less detrimental to birds than a high-voltage electric power line. It is comparable to 1 kilometer of road. Local birds appear to recognise the existence of a wind farm and avoid it. Care should be taken not to site a farm on a sensitive migration route."
[Tiwari, G. N., and R. K. (Rajeev Kumar), 1982- Mishra. 2012. Advanced renewable energy sources. Cambridge: RSC Publishing. www.knovel.com/knovel2/Toc.jsp?BookID=5315. ; p. 442. www.worldcat.org/oclc/773420601 ]
quick weight loss
2014-08-19 12:32:01
Orignal From: energy PROBLEM SOLVERS become THE PROBLEM or the environmental impact of "renewable energy"
No comments:
Post a Comment