21

Environmental impacts of renewable energy

Rosnazri Ali
Tunku Muhammad Nizar Tunku Mansur
Nor Hanisah Baharudin
Syed Idris Syed Hassan    School of Electrical System Engineering, Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Arau, Perlis, Malaysia

Abstract

The chapter focuses on the environmental concerns of fossil fuel, hydroelectric, nuclear power plants as well as renewable energy generations. The environmental concerns of fossil fuel consumption have shown significant detrimental impacts emitting large amount of greenhouse gases that caused global warming. With regard to it and energy security issues, nuclear energy is considered clean and reliable energy source to some extent. However the disastrous environmental impacts since Fukushima Daiichi 2011 accidents have created negative perception toward nuclear energy. As an alternative, renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, and others are another option to be considered to meet the future energy demand due to environmental friendly and sustainability. Nevertheless, its environmental impacts need to be defined before implementation. Thus, future sustainable energy from renewable energy is highly promoted and emphasized for energy security, lower electricity cost, and a greener earth for future generation.

Keywords

environmental concerns
fossil fuel
nuclear energy
renewable energy
greenhouse gases
global warming

21.1. Introduction

Energy has become the driving force of economic growth starting from the industrial revolution in the eighteenth to the nineteenth centuries. Industrialization has shifted from human energy to create products and basic machines to a new world of coal-powered machines for mass productions. Quality of life has increased too with transportation, health, and consumer products tremendously improved. Life without electricity nowadays is unthinkable, as billions of people depend on electricity for their daily activities. An oil crisis occurred in 1973, which embarked upon the importance of energy security and renewable energy resources becoming another option to support the world’s demand for electricity. Critically, the depletion and unstable supply of fossil fuel increases the cost of electricity. Furthermore, adverse effects from fossil fuel combustion to generate electricity since the industrial revolution have put further pressure on society to realize global warming issues.
It is widely known that nowadays nuclear energy is the best option to cope with the increasing demand of energy. However, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in 2011 startled the world. The catastrophic impacts from radioactive explosion are indeed disastrous and widely damaging, and the total clean up may take up to 30–40 years, as announced by Japanese government.
Due to the nuclear disaster in Fukushima Daiichi, many countries such as Germany have taken serious actions toward nuclear power plants. In addition, European Union has committed to reduce its carbon dioxide emission less than 80%–95% compared to 1990 levels to further limit the increase of global temperature by 2°C as established by United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen. Thus, Germany has planned to phase out nuclear energy by 2022 with a program called “Energiewende,” which means energy transition from fossil fuel and nuclear to 100% renewable energy. This energy-efficient program mainly improves on the renewable energy role to supply primary energy demand by up to 50%, or even 100%, by 2050 [1]. This energy transition program has projected that by 2050, 80% of electricity demand will be supplied by the country’s own renewable energies and another 20% of renewable energy generated will be imported by neighboring countries such as Norway through existing hydropower reservoirs [2,3].
It is widely known that fossil fuel power plants have led to pollution and global warming issues. Thus, the idea to promote renewable energy power plants to further replace the existing fossil fuel and nuclear power plants is a better solution for a greener earth that will limit the increase in global temperatures. However, even this is quite ambiguous and ambitious. The environmental impact of cradle-to-grave renewable energy technologies will be explained in this chapter to further consider these technologies as compared with environmental impacts from fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

21.2. Environmental concerns related to fossil fuel power plants

The reliability of fossil fuel power plants in generating electricity has successfully contributed to global economic growth and has improved quality of life for decades. However, the adverse effects of these conventional fossil fuel power plants have increased significantly toward the emissions of greenhouse gases. From 1995 to 2011, global greenhouse gas emissions increased by 38% exponentially [4]. In 2013, 31% of total US greenhouse gas emissions were from the electricity industry, which is the largest economic sector in the United States. There was a substantial rise in total greenhouse gas emissions by 11% since 1990 in conjunction with the growth of electricity demand where fossil fuels still remain the vital energy source for electricity generation [5].
The greenhouse gases allow natural heating of the earth from freezing during the winter and help plants to keep growing. However, increasing greenhouse gas concentration traps more heat inside the atmosphere and causes the earth’s temperature to rise [6]. Carbon dioxide is the most abundant greenhouse gas and acts like a layer of glass surrounding the earth. Other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are also creating a transparent layer that allows high temperature sun radiation to enter the atmosphere, yet prevents heat from escaping to outer space. This creates a serious problem, which is widely known as global warming and it is mainly caused by conventional fossil fuel power plants.
United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen established to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit the increase in global temperature below 2°C. Any increment of more than 2°C of global mean surface temperature will lead to a rise in sea levels, an increase in global ocean temperature, ice expansion of the Arctic sea ice, ocean acidification, and extreme climatic events that are also called “dangerous climate change” and “catastrophic greenhouse effect” [6,7]. These calamities will be very difficult to deal with resulting in environmental disruption and enormous economic losses. In order to limit global temperature increase to 2°C, the CO2 equivalent (CO2e) should be stabilized within the range of 450–550 ppm CO2e [8]. As of March 2015, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 was 401.52 ppm, which was measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. It was reported that CO2e concentration levels are increasing by more than 2 ppm yearly [9]. By delaying further necessary action, future generations will suffer even more severe detrimental effects of a changing environment when the mean surface temperature exceeds the threshold limit of 2°C.
One of the solutions to alleviate climate change is to develop ambient air quality standards at a national level in order to limit greenhouse gas concentration in the environment. Mitigating greenhouse gas concentration in the environment would also reduce CO2 emissions and its related pollutant formation. The most important issue that can be solved here is to have a better and cleaner air quality. In 2012, 3.7 million premature deaths were reported by the World Health Organization (WHO), caused by low air quality in urban and rural areas. Improving ambient air quality will definitely improve health among the populations especially in people with cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Since 1987, the WHO established air quality guidelines that were further revised in 1997.
Table 21.1, based on the WHO Air Quality Guidelines 2005 Global Updates, proposes a review of guidelines for the four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), ozone (O3), and particulate matter.

Table 21.1

WHO air quality guidelines (AQG) [10,11]

Pollutant Averaging time Standard level
Carbon monoxide 15 min 90 ppm
30 min 50 ppm
1 h 25 ppm
8 h 10 ppm
Nitrogen oxide 1 h 200 μg/m3
Ozone 8 h 100 μg/m3
Sulfur dioxide 10 min 500 μg/m3
24 h 20 μg/m3

Particulate

matters

PM2.5 Yearly 10 μg/m3
24 h 25 μg/m3
PM10 Yearly 20 μg/m3
24 h 50 μg/m3

21.2.1. Sulfur oxides

The great fog of December 1952 in London has become a significant effect of deteriorating ambient air quality. More than 3500 people died during this event, mostly due to bronchitis, emphysema, and cardiovascular disease. During the fog, concentrations of smoke and sulfur dioxide reached their highest levels of 4.46 mg/m3 and 3.83 mg/m3, respectively. The deadly fog was remarkable for its lengthy duration and high density. According to the Interim Report of the Committee on Air Pollution 1953, the main pollutants were from coal burning and other coal products [12].
When sulfur-containing fossil fuels such as coal and heavy oil are burned in the process of generating electricity in power plants, sulfur oxides (SOx) are being produced when the released sulfur is combined with oxygen. Sulfur oxides refers to a group of highly reactive gases that contain sulfur and oxygen compounds such as sulfur monoxide (SO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), sulfur trioxide (SO3), lower sulfur oxides, higher sulfur oxides, disulfur monoxide, and disulfur dioxide [13]. The most hazardous gas among this group is SO2, normally called black smoke [10]. It is commonly used as an indicator representing the other gases that belong to a larger gaseous group of sulfur oxides since it has the highest concentration in atmosphere than other sulfur oxides such as SO3 and its existence may lead to another SOx formation. Mitigating the SO2 may also avoid the formation of fine sulfate particles, which can affect the environment and public health [14].
Fifty percent of SO2 annual global emission is generated from coal burning and another 25–30% from oil burning [15]. Normally, concentrations of SO2 below 0.6 ppm will not affect human beings. However, most people start recognizing SO2 at 5 ppm since it has a nasty, sharp smell [16]. Nevertheless, even short-term exposure between 5 min and 24 h can cause respiratory illnesses such as breathing difficulty (bronchoconstriction) [17] and aggravate asthma symptoms especially in those who are actively exercising or doing outdoor activities. Scientific evidence has shown that at-risk populations such as children, the elderly, and those who have a prior history of asthma are the most affected when exposed to SO2 even in a short term [18]. Further exposure to 10 ppm in an hour will irritate humans through breathing problems and mucus removal. The condition will worsen if the weather is stagnant, there are high ambient temperatures and humidity as well as with aerosols mixture. Furthermore, the problem will become worse if SO2 reacts with other compounds in the environment to form fine sulfate particles and enters the digestive system [12,19].

21.2.2. Nitrogen oxides

Another group of highly reactive gases is nitrogen oxides. High-temperature combustion of fossil fuels containing nitrogen, such as coal, heavy fuel oil, and natural gas, will produce nitrogen oxides (NOx) such as nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The generic term for both of these artificially made oxides is NOx. Further exposure of nitrogen dioxide with volatile organic compounds, which is accelerated by photochemical effects under sunlight, will contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone (O3) or tropospheric ozone or smog. The NOx also react with the atmosphere to form acid rain [15].
As compared with NO, NO2 has more adverse health effects on humans since it affects hemoglobin-oxygen affinity. The hemoglobin functions as a transporter of oxygen and carbon dioxide in our blood. However, the existence of NO2 in our blood will interrupt the bonding of hemoglobin-oxygen and form acid in the lungs [19,20]. It has a more harmful effect than CO for the same concentration. It can be seen in urban areas as a reddish-brown layer with a sharp odor [21]. It can also affect the breathing and respiratory system from the reaction of NOx with other compounds such as ammonia, moisture, and others to form nitric acid vapor and other particles. This will further damage lung tissue and developing fetuses. Other than this, the critical effects on respiratory diseases are caused by small particles inhaled deep into fragile lungs, which worsens respiratory diseases such as bronchitis and emphysema and intensifies existing heart disease [22] Table 21.2.

Table 21.2

Exposure effects of nitrogen dioxide on human health [19]

Concentrations Exposures Effects
0.4 ppm and higher Once Recognized by its odor
0.06–0.1 ppm Continuous Respiratory illness
150–200 ppm Few minutes Destroys bronchioles (the smallest part of the bronchiole tube)
500 ppm Few minutes Acute edema (swelling due to the excessive watery liquid trapped in cellular tissue)
As a prominent pollutant, NOx have major impacts on health and the environment. Besides acid rain and ground-level ozone or smog, the release of NOx also contribute to water pollution as can be seen at Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in the United States. The deterioration of water quality is mainly caused by eutrophication from excessive nutrient inflows, mainly nitrogen. Water with nitrate pollution has destroyed the nutrients’ ecosystem and affects aquatic plants and animals [22,23]. Eutrophication is a process by which water nutrients have been enriched to stimulate the dense growth of aquatic plant life, which eventually leads to oxygen depletion. Lacking of oxygen supply will decrease fish and shellfish populations.
Besides, airborne NOx also react with organic compounds in the atmosphere to form toxic chemicals such as nitrate radicals, nitroarenes, and nitrosamines, which may cause genetic mutation. Furthermore, particles of NO2 can cause visibility impairment since it can inhibit the transmission of sunlight, especially in urban areas. As NO is one of the greenhouse gases, the mixture of NO with other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere also affects global warming, which can cause catastrophic climate change.

21.2.3. Ozone

Ozone can be classified as good ozone and bad ozone. Good ozone, scientifically known as stratospheric ozone, is located upwards in the atmosphere at 10–50 km altitude, whereas bad ozone or troposphere ozone is located nearer the earth, which is less than 10 km altitude [24,25]. Stratospheric ozone is a natural shield of the earth since it absorbs UVB radiation within a wavelength range of 280–315 nm. UVB radiation is emitted by the sun and is harmful to life on earth [26,27]. However, stratospheric ozone has been depleted gradually since 1970 because of synthetic chemicals, which are referred as ozone-depleting substances (ODS) including CFCs, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, halons, methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform. These chemicals have been used previously in refrigerators, coolants, fire extinguishers, pesticides, aerosol propellants, and solvents.

CFCl3+SunlightCFCl2+Cl (Clorine Atom)

image(21.1)

Cl (Clorine Atom)+O3 (Ozone)ClO (Chlorine monoxide)+O2

image(21.2)

ClO (Chlorine monoxide)+O3Cl+2O2

image(21.3)
These chain reactions will continuously occur and it has been estimated by scientists that 100,000 good ozone molecules can be destroyed by one chlorine atom. The most dramatic issue is that the lifetime of most CFCs is within range of 50–100 years before they are removed from the atmosphere [28]. This catastrophic effect can be seen at the Antarctic ozone hole where more than half of the ozone over the South Pole is lost during every spring due to sunlight occurrence. Due to this critical issue, the ODS usages have been controlled under the Montreal Protocol and their production has been banned by signatory countries. As a consequence, the atmospheric concentration of ODS has stabilized and declined recently [29].
Overexposure of UVB radiation to humans contributes to the risk of the most fatal skin cancer, melanoma. The risk of developing melanoma has increased more than twice since 1990. Other than this, UVB may also affect eye diseases such as cataracts and weaken the immune system. Even plants and crops are affected by this exposure, such as soybean, which leads to drops in production. Furthermore, marine life is also disturbed by UVB radiation since it leads to phytoplankton damage, which will decrease fisheries and marine food sources, as this is the base of the ocean food chain.
On the other hand, the bad or tropospheric ozone occurs when NO2 is emitted by fossil fuels when they react with sunrays, producing NO and a free oxygen atom (O) to form O3 at lower layers of the atmosphere [24].

NO2+SunlightNO+O

image(21.4)

O+O2O3

image(21.5)
This tropospheric ozone is dangerous to human health especially in lung disease since it can worsen asthmatic patients condition and make them more sensitive to SO2. Even healthy people have difficulty breathing when exposed to ozone. Besides, it can trigger other respiratory ailments such as chest pain, throat irritation, cough, congestion, emphysema, and bronchitis. It can also damage crops and their ecosystems, which leads to reduced agricultural production, and can destroy tree seedlings prone to diseases and pests as well as harsh weather [25]. Due to these effects, ozone has been considered one of the most common air pollutants by the WHO in addition to particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide.
In contrast, tropospheric ozone can be converted back to NO2 and oxygen molecules (O2) naturally when there is an availability of NO and lack of sunlight such as during late afternoon and night:

NO+O3NO2+O2

image(21.6)
Even though this natural process will help convert ozone to NO2, this rapid chain reaction will continuously release ozone in the environment as long as NO is available in the atmosphere. Emission of hydrocarbon from transportation combustion will react with NO to release organic radicals. This competition between hydrocarbon and ozone to react with NO will also affect the continuous duration of ozone in the atmosphere [10].

21.2.4. Acid rain

Interactive reaction between SO2 and NO2 in the atmosphere creates another serious environmental problem: acid rain. When it is raining, water droplets run through the atmosphere mixing with the contaminant gases to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4), nitric acid (HNO3), and carbonic acid (H2CO3). Acid rain is normally referred to as the most corrosive acid. On the other hand, H2CO3 is also damaging since it is produced in a larger quantity. Instead of water droplets, acid rain also can be in a form of snow, fog, mist, or dry deposition depending on the moisture content in the environment. These corrosive acid rain precipitations fall onto buildings, houses, structures, oceans, and farms. Because the increased concentration of SO2 and NO2 results from fossil fuel combustion it will also increase the concentration of acid rain and become more harmful.
A pure natural water pH value is 7 whereas normal rainwater is 5.6. Any pH value of less than 5 is considered to be acid rain. The acid rain will acidify lakes, ponds, or estuaries, which greatly affects their flora and fauna and ecosystems, destroying all marine life. An example of an acid rain tragedy is the acidification of 95,700 lakes in the Adirondack Mountains, USA, and Ontario, Canada, which have killed the fish population and resulted in all aquatic organisms being suppressed to survive in acidic streams [19]. Honnedaga Lake lies deep in the forest of Adirondacks and has been seen with an eerie blue color because its plankton has died due to acid rain. The acidification of water streams has a damaging effect on fisheries since it inhibits hatching and erodes the gill tissues and cellular debris between gill filaments. There are several fish species that can survive in acidic water; however, there is an increasing mercury content in their bodies. Heavy metal seeps into the rivers from soil due to acid rain. Also, this affects the ecosystem since black flies, which are a scourge during outdoor activities due to their bloody and painful bite, remain unaffected by acidic water. When most organisms die, black flies will flourish with less competition for habitat and fewer predators to control their population.
Due to the corrosive effect of acid rain, most of the hardwood forests stop growing and evergreen forests are losing their needles, which have been confirmed by the decline of red spruce forests at Camel Humps, Vermont’s Green Mountain. Acid rain has drained vital nutrients from the soils and leaches aluminum from rocks, which can destroy the roots. This prevents the plants from absorbing water and other nutrients for their growth. In addition, acid rains are also damaging the structure and finish of automobiles, which causes rapid weathering. Moreover, acid rain is also leaching poisonous heavy metals, such as mercury and lead, in the water supply. Copper is also destroying the bacteria that are beneficial to septic systems [30].

21.2.5. Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere after oxygen, nitrogen, argon, and water vapor. A delicate balance between these mixtures and gases is really important for human beings, animals, and plants to stay healthy. However, carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 35% since the dawn of industrial revolution between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as measured at Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii. Due to intense industrialization and deforestation, carbon dioxide has been emitted in large amounts and become poisonous due to massive fossil fuel combustion for electrical energy production. This gas traps the heat in the environment as well as the sun’s heat and increases the ambient temperature just like glass in a greenhouse.
As stated by United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen, a limit of 2°C of global temperature has been established due to the dangerous climate change effects [3,4]. The increasing global temperature melts the ice caps at the North and South Poles, glaciers, and snowlines. This will lead to a rise in ocean levels of 2–2.5 m by end of this century, and will cause flooding of the fertile land along coastal areas. This abrupt change disturbs the ecosystem and obviously will reduce crop production due to limited fertile land. In addition, carbon dioxide also dissolves in the sea, which also increases the surface seawater temperature and dissipates the heat back to the atmosphere. This cycle will further intensify the effect of greenhouse effect. The increase of sea surface temperatures will also cause more destructive hurricanes and millions of people and properties will be affected. Another greenhouse effect is the heavy rainfall in some areas, which induces heavy flooding, whereas other parts will have droughts in order to balance the water cycle [16,31].
In order to minimize carbon dioxide emission, carbon footprint is a solution that can be used to investigate the summation of greenhouse gas emissions of a product or service across its lifecycle from cradle-to-grave or from the farm gate to the exit gate of the processing plants [3234]. It is measured in units of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). It comprises two main parts, which are direct and indirect footprints. The direct or primary footprint is a direct emission of CO2e from the fossil fuel combustion such as energy usage and transportation, whereas the indirect footprint is an indirect emission of CO2e from the whole lifecycle of products or services [35,36]. Figure 21.1 shows comparison of carbon footprints between various energy resources.

Carbon footprint=Σactivity data×activity emission factor

image(21.7)
image
Figure 21.1 Comparison of CO2 footprint (in kilograms) of various fossil fuels and renewable sources for production of 1 kWh of electric energy [37,38].
Coal is the highest carbon footprint contributor among conventional fossil fuels, which is the main reason why coal-fired power plants are the highest producer of CO2 per kWh. Figure 21.2 shows that other conventional fossil fuels also release carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere per unit heat energy input.

Example 21.1

Estimate the daily CO2 footprint of a residential house with AC appliances as shown below. Consider coal to be used in generating the electrical energy with a coefficient of approximately 5.06 kg CO2/kWh of electricity.
image
Figure 21.2 Carbon dioxide emission levels in kilograms per billion BTU of energy input [37].
AC appliances Quantity Usage (per day)
14-ft.3 refrigerator (1080 Wh/day) 1 24 h
60-W compact fluorescents 3 8 h
70-W, 20-in. color television 1 3 h
800-W microwave oven 1 1 h
180-W, 300-ft. submersible pump for water supply from a well 1 2 h

Solution

Energy consumed can be tabulated as follows:
AC appliances Power (W) Usage (per day) Wh/day
14-ft.3 refrigerator (1000 Wh/day) 1000 1000
60-W compact fluorescents 3 × 60 = 180 8 h 180 × 8 = 1440
70-W, 20-in. color television 70 3 h 70 × 3 = 210
800-W microwave oven 800 1 h 800
180-W, 300-ft. submersible pump for water supply from a well 180 2 h 360
Total energy consumed per day 3810

Carbon footprint=(3.81kWh/day)×(5.06kgCO2/kWh)=19.3kgCO2/day.

image

21.2.6. Ashes

Series of tragedies have occurred since 1930 such as Meuse Valley, Belgium, and Donora, PA, which show that killer smog can cause death and respiratory and cardiovascular disease [39]. A total of 840,000 tons of ash are emitted from a typical 2000 MW conventional coal-fired power plant annually [40]. Ash is the converted inorganic impurities from coal combustion, which may discharge as bottom ash and fly ash. The bottom ash is discharged from the bottom of the furnace whereas fly ash is the discharged particles in the flue gas. Fly ash creates the primary particulate matter, which is generally referred as “PM,” “PM10,” or “PM2.5,” and shows the value of the aerodynamic diameter of the particulate matter in micrometers [41,42]. PM10 is a coarse particle with a diameter less than 10 μm and is easily found in dusty industries and on roadways. Another fine particle with a diameter less than 2.5 μm is referred as PM2.5 and is more harmful since it can penetrate deep into the lung.
Instead of using its dynamic diameter to classify the particulate matter, classification can also be done based on its source, which are the primary and secondary particles. The primary particles are directly suspended as a result of human activity or naturally. However, secondary particles are produced by indirect reaction from chemicals emitted by primary particles that react with sunrays. Various health problems may occur due to inhalation of these particulate matters, such as coughing, irritation in airways, breathing difficulty, worsening asthmatic symptoms, bronchitis, heart attacks, and many more. In addition, there are also other adverse effects to the environment such as visibility impairment, acidification of lakes and rivers, and changes in ecosystems at coastal water and estuaries because of nutrient imbalance and leaching of nutrients from soil, which damages forests and crops, killing diversity in the ecosystems and damaging building structures [43].
In order to control suspended particle matters in the atmosphere, several technologies have been used to filter them before they are released into the environment, such as wet particulate scrubbers, fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, mechanical collectors, and high temperature high-pressure particulate control. The wet scrubber functions by using liquid as a filter to trap the flying particulates and sulfur dioxide before they are released into the environment. On the other hand, fabric filters will trap the particulates in bags just like the vacuum cleaner before the gas is vented to the atmosphere. This method has been used widely since 1970 and its efficiency is more than 99.5%.

21.2.7. Legionnaires’ disease and cooling towers

Legionnaires’ disease or Legionella is a disease caused by bacterial pneumonia called Legionella pneumophila species [44]. The generic term “Legionellosis” or Legion fever is used for this kind of bacterial infection, which can be a mild flu-like infection of Pontiac fever up to the more severe and possibly fatal pneumonia of Legionnaires’ disease [45]. It was first detected in July 1976 during an American Legion convention in Philadelphia, USA, where 29 people died out of 182 reported cases [46]. Actually L. pneumophila is a natural aquatic bacterium with the ability to survive in extreme environmental conditions within a range of 20–45°C [47]. The findings demonstrate that the highest infection rate occurs in summer months with samples collected monthly from thermally altered lakes. The thermally altered lakes are a cooling water lake for power plants and receive heated waste from the facility. It was revealed that the warm water and damp habitats that are suitable for algal colonization are also suitable environments for L. pneumophila [48].
Legionnaires’ disease was an emerging disease of the twentieth century and is usually referred to as an “emerging infectious disease (UID)” is an impact of human alteration to the environment [49]. The source of legionnaires’ disease is cooling towers, hot and cold water systems, spa pools, thermal pools, springs, humidifiers, domestic plumbing, and potting and compost. It can be transmitted through inhalation of the contaminated aerosol, wound infection, and aspiration. There are several contaminated places such as shopping centers, restaurants, clubs, leisure centers, sports clubs, private residences, hotels, cruise ships, camp sites, hospitals, and medical equipment [45].
Initially, cooling towers were founded to be the primary source of this disease. Cooling towers installed at public areas with dense populations, seasonal and climatic conditions, which are intermittently used, have poor engineering design, and have had little or no maintenance are the possible risks for this disease. A recent case was reported in July 2010 where a 73-year-old patient was hospitalized at Kobe University Hospital, Japan, due to alveolar hemorrhage, systemic lupus erythematosus, and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome. After 4 months in the hospital, she was then diagnosed with nosocomial Legionella pneumonia. Further treatment was given but she died because of uncontrollable pulmonary alveolar hemorrhage. Since she was diagnosed with nosocomial Legionella pneumonia, the infection control team investigated the source of the risk. The investigation revealed a link to a contaminated hospital-cooling tower; tests showed a 95% strain similarity of samples taken from the patient and the hospital cooling tower. This contaminated aerosol from the hospital-cooling tower had been inhaled by this immune-compromised patient. The actions taken by the hospital to prevent the L. pneumophila breeding was to increase the temperature of the hot water supply appropriately, increase the Legionella culture test frequency to three times annually, and introduce automated disinfectant insertion machines with BALSTER ST-40 N as an antiseptic reagent. After implementing the new preventive measures, no cases have been reported since from the hospital-cooling tower or the hot water system [50].

21.3. Environmental concerns related to hydroelectric power plants

Hydropower is one of the major renewable resources in the world and is considered clean energy since there is no burning of fossil fuel. Many large power plants in the world are built by using hydro technology, such as the Three Gorges Dam in China, which generates up to 22,500 MW of electricity. However, the construction of a dam to store water for hydropower could impact the environment as discussed subsequently.

21.3.1. Destruction of large area of forest and river ecosystems

There is no doubt that the construction of a dam will result in complete and irreversible destruction of a forest’s ecosystem. For example, the Bakun Dam in Sarawak, which is the largest in Southeast Asia, will flood 69,640 ha of forest ecosystem, which is larger than the size of Singapore. In addition, the reservoir created by the dam will become a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide and methane due to microbial decomposition of the submerged forest [51].
Moreover, the construction of a dam will block the connection between the upstream and downstream of the river, which will create a sedimentation problem behind the dam. This situation will also affect some of the fish population because they cannot migrate to their spawning ground. The slow velocity of the river flow in some bays of the reservoir will influence water quality due to the high content of nutrients in water. This will cause eutrophication where excessive growth of aquatic plants will pollute the water as happened in the Three Gorges Dam [52].

21.3.2. Population resettlement

The hydropower project requires the displacement of people residing within the flooding area. The submerging area containing houses, heritage landmarks, burial grounds, crops, and ancestral land will vanish causing socioeconomic hardship. For example, thousands of indigenous people living in the surrounding Bakun Dam region will be displaced to a new settlement area. These indigenous people will lose their ancestral land and forests where they have been living independently and on which they have been relying for their agriculture, hunting, and gathering of forest products [51].

21.4. Environmental concerns related to nuclear power plants

The increasing cost of electricity generation as well as environmental impacts of conventional energy has caused many countries to shift to cleaner resources to generate electricity. Nuclear power plants are an example of a clean energy but which may cause concern to others due to their potential disastrous impact. Nuclear power has been accepted for low-cost electricity generation compared to other resources. In fact, it is cheaper than most of the conventional fossil fuel energy and renewable energy resources without being subsidized by governments. Moreover, it can generate electricity continuously with negligible greenhouse gas emissions. With increased safety features, the nuclear energy power plant is a better solution for energy security and climate change problems.
As updated by the World Nuclear Association in 2015, nuclear energy has contributed to the world’s total electricity generation by 11.5% with 375,000 MW total capacities in 31 countries. Due to its advantages, many countries have become nuclear power dependent. There are several countries that depend on nuclear power for more than 30% of their electricity production, such as Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia, Ukraine, South Korea, and Bulgaria, whereas France generates 75% of its energy from nuclear power. These countries are followed with the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain, Romania, and Russia, which generate about 20% of their electricity demand by using nuclear power. Previously in 2010, Japan generated more than 25% of their electricity from nuclear power until, however, the tsunami and earthquake that hit the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in 2011 [53].
A large nuclear power plant can save about 50,000 barrels of oil and its return of investment can be recovered within several years, which makes nuclear power a strategic plan for reliable and low-cost energy supply. An example of the energy that can be generated by complete fission of 1 g of uranium-235 (U235) isotope with total energy produced per fission reaction is 200 MeV (million electron volts) that can generate 1 MW of electricity per day, which can save 3000 kg of coal or more than 2000 L of fuel per day and avoid carbon dioxide emissions of 250 kg per day [19,54].
Even though nuclear power can be considered as the future of energy to cope up with world economic growth and global warming issues, the unprecedented tsunami-induced nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant on March 11, 2011 activated negative responses and damaging images toward nuclear power, which has prompted many countries to reconsider nuclear power plants and even phase out their development [55,56]. Japan is fully prepared against earthquakes and seismic activities; however, the magnitude of earthquake followed by a tsunami was one of the largest in the world and the biggest in Japan and has damaged the Pacific coastal line of northeast Japan including the Fukushima Daiichi’s three nuclear reactors. Due to the nuclear spillage and tsunami, more than 90,000 local residents were evacuated from the area and 2884 people were killed. Fukushima Daiichi was the first time that three reactors were damaged on one occasion since the single reactor accident at Chernobyl in 1986 and the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.
The explosion at Fukushima Daiichi has caused extensive radioactivity emission in the atmosphere via deposited radiocesium such as 137Cs, 134Cs, and I131 [57,58]. Iodine-131 or I131 is the most hazardous and toxic element to humans as well as plants since it is inhaled and leads to thyroid cancer in children and adolescents [5860]. It has been reported that thyroid cancer was the major health effect from Chernobyl disaster due to the intake of I131. In addition, the long-lived deposited radiocesium 137Cs and 134Cs has caused relative homogeneous exposure of all organs and body tissues via its radiation even at low rates, which may also cause other cancers [61].

21.4.1. Radioactive release during normal operation

During their normal operations nuclear power plants emit radioactive particles, gases, and liquids to the environment in small amounts within the permissible limits laid down by nuclear regulatory commissions, such as the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, UK Nuclear Regulatory Authority, and others. Prior to being released to the environment, radioactive materials are treated, released according to the procedure, and monitored. These safety precautions are done to minimize environmental impacts on humans, animals, plants, and sea creatures. The main objective of these regulatory authorities is to make sure that the nuclear power plants are capable of controlling the nuclear reaction, cooling of radioactive materials, and containment of radioactive radiation through various ways in order to avoid radioactive materials from escaping. Table 21.3 compares several whole body radiation doses and their effect due to their exposure.

Table 21.3

Comparison of whole-body radiation doses and their effects [62]

Whole-body radiation doses (mSv) Effects
1 mSv/year Allowable normal radiation for the public who are exposed by discharged and direct radiation from nuclear power plants
20 mSv/year Current allowable limit for nuclear plants workers and uranium miners
50 mSv Allowable short-term dose for emergency workers
100 mSv Lowest annual level that significantly increase the risk of cancer
250 mSv Allowable short-term exposure for emergency limit such as for workers controlling the 2011 Fukushima accident
1000 mSv short term May cause acute radiation syndrome such as nausea and decreased white blood cell count, but not death
10,000 mSv short term May cause death with continuous exposure in a few weeks
Public concern has increased due to radiation from nuclear power plant effluents as seen by vented steam and its ejection outlets at the water discharged areas. There are definitely permissible effluents that are released to the environment. However, excessive radiation will increase the risk of damage to organ and body tissues, genetic mutations, birth defects, leukemia, cancers, immune system disorders, and many more. Human body tissues are made of compounds of carbon in which isotope 6C14 can be found in trace quantities with radioactive potassium isotope 19K40 to balance cells’ fluid quantities in the human body. Once radioactive gas is inhaled or consumed, this radiation will result in biological damage. As an example, radiation can penetrate and damage cells inside the respiratory tract passages, which induces lung cancer [63]. Human beings are also exposed to background radiation and also impose radiation. It has been reported that one Brazilian beach reached 800 mSv. The legal authorities have to consider the background radiation that the public have been exposed to, which is 2.5 mSv per year by normal activities in order to limit public exposure to radiation.
The discharged nuclear power plants’ effluents depend on the type of reactors, which are pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR). The reactors that have been used in Europe are PWR, which is safer than BWR because the reactor vessels are separated from the steam generators. However, the steam in BWR is directly produced in the reactor vessel and routed to the steam turbine generator to produce electricity. The steam also brings absorbed radionuclides in gaseous form. The “offgas” system will remove the radioactive gases and delay the release of radionuclides such as krypton and xenon until their acceptable decay, but the possibilities of leakage and accidental release are the main concern of the public [19,24]. Leakage in nuclear power plants is due to mechanical failure and human error will increase because nuclear power plants are getting older, are not maintained properly, and lack monitoring from legal authorities. Even the transportation of fuel from mines to the nuclear power plant also exposes the environment to radiation.

21.4.2. Loss of coolant

The uncontrolled loss of coolant accident (LOCA) in nuclear power plants may cause ecological and economic disaster as occurred at Fukushima Daiichi in 2011 where a hydrogen explosion damaged the plant’s structure and loss of coolant caused meltdown of its three unit reactors [64]. The main factor in obtaining an operating license for a nuclear power plant is safe reactor behavior during LOCA. The criteria of safe cooling ability of the reactor core are to ensure that its temperature does not exceed 1204°C between loss of coolant and start-up of emergency cooling and that its oxidation level equivalent cladding reacted of the cladding material does not exceed 17% [6567].
If the reactor’s temperature increases more than 1200°C, hydrogen molecules will be separated from the water and trapped at the ceiling of the reactor due to its light density. This may cause a fire if ignited and damage the containment structure. The explosion will emit radioactive steam into the air just like the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daiichi accidents. Moreover, meltdown will happen if the reactor’s temperature reaches 2400°C where the uranium fuel will melt down and the fuel rod will become molten wax. The molten uranium will continue to melt its way downward and penetrate the ground until the heat can be absorbed by the molten rock and soil, which is about 10 ft. deep. The molten soil surrounding the fuel will harden like glass and contain the remaining fuel. However, if the molten uranium penetrates the groundwater supplies then this will have a bigger disastrous impact, and the contamination will be spread to a larger area. In fact, very high pressure from the reactor’s high temperature will explode the containment structure and release the radioactive emission into the atmosphere [24,63].
A series of tragedies have occurred due to LOCAs at nuclear power plants. As an example, severe LOCA happened in Manitoba in November 1978 where a major coolant spillage occurred due to pipe leakage of the WR-1 at Pinawa. A total of 2739 L of coolant oil leaked and discharged into the Winnipeg River. Due to the loss of coolant, the reactor reached a high temperature even though not due to meltdown temperature and damaged the three fuel elements and emitted fission products [68]. A year later, the largest nuclear disaster happened in the United States on March 28, 1979 due to loss of coolant and suffered a severe core meltdown. Fortunately, the containment structure was still intact and held almost all of the radioactive emission [69]. LOCA is the main factor that leads to meltdown and damage to the nuclear power plants. The damaging effects through radioactive release through ground soil, water supply, and atmosphere led to major health problems and even fatalities. It is not only human beings that are affected; the coolant leakage that was discharged into the river is eaten by fish and aquatic organisms. Research has been done that revealed that radiation also leads to fatalities to fish, mussels, and other aquatic species [70]. The river also provides irrigation to crops and vegetation, which then died due to the radiation; some of is eaten by humans. Livestock such as cows and sheep drink from the radiated river and provide milk and meat for human consumption. This damaging continuous food chain will surely affect humans through various carcinogenic diseases and even genetic mutation.

21.4.3. Disposal of radioactive wastes

The infinite source of nuclear energy is a better option to clean and cheap energy in recent energy security and global warming problems. However, society has to accept that this energy has disastrous damaging capabilities over a long time and takes more than a thousand years to decay. This scenario was once called a Faustian bargain with the society due to its catastrophic effects [71]. The critical issue after generating energy from nuclear power plants is management of its radioactive wastes. Since fuel rods contain uranium 92U235 in the reactor they will deplete and no longer be able to sustain fission reaction, therefore it should be removed and replaced with new fuel rods. The remaining fuel normally will be stored in temporary storage, which is housed on site in lead-lined concrete pools of water. This pool will cool and contain radiation from the remaining fuel until a permanent disposal decision is made [63]. The radioactive wastes are classified into three main types according to their amounts, radioactive levels, and isotopes half-lives; these are low-level, medium-level, and high-level wastes. These radioactive wastes should be managed using the delay-and-decay method, whereby they should be stored properly until they decay their radioisotope naturally into stable, nonradioactive forms (Table 21.4).

Table 21.4

Radioactive waste management for different types of radioactive wastes [72]

Types of radioactive waste Sources Waste management methods
Low-level waste Hospitals, laboratories, industry, nuclear fuel cycle such as paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters, and others Incinerated in a closed container to reduce its volume and buried in shallow landfill sites
Medium-level waste Resins, chemical sludge, reactor components, and contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning Solidified with concrete or bitumen and deeply buried underground
High-level waste The remaining fuel and the principal waste from reprocessing the remaining fuel Vitrified by combining into borosilicate glass (Pyrex), sealed inside stainless steel canisters, and buried deep underground
Nuclear power plants have radioactive wastes that should be disposed of properly in a location that is a remote and geographically stable area, such as Yucca Mountain, Nevada, in United States or the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the Chihuahuan Desert, New Mexico. The disposal area should be built with proper security to ensure that the highly radioactive waste is stored safely within its half-life, which can be more than a thousand years [73]. Natural disposal of radioactive waste was shown at Oklo in Gabon, West Africa two billion years ago where the radioactive materials were safely contained in that area and eventually decayed into nonradioactive elements [68]. This shows that it is possible to contain radioactive wastes in secured long-term storage until they reach a safe level in unspecified time.
The safety nuclear regulatory bodies for each country that have nuclear power plants must update their policies if necessary with recent issues in order to maintain the safety of the spent fuel storage. Critical risks such as terrorist attacks, plane crashes, tsunamis, floods, tornados, and hazards from nearby activities should be taken into account in enhancing emergency responses during these conditions. These emergency responses must be in place for quite long time, which may take billions of years, and is the major challenge for radioactive waste storage.

21.5. Environmental concerns related to renewable energy

Renewable energies are all low-carbon energies and have less impact on the environment compared with fossil-fuel energies, from a global perspective. However, the impact of its implementation should not be ignored. Hence, it is important to recognize this impact and mitigation steps to limit the effect.

21.5.1. Solar energy

Solar photovoltaic (PV) energy uses unlimited energy from the sun where the main advantages are that it is environmentally friendly and emission free during its operation. However, the major concerns regarding solar PV are at the manufacturing and disposal stages.

21.5.1.1. Toxic chemicals used in manufacturing solar photovoltaic panels

Different chemicals are used in manufacturing solar PV panels, particularly during extraction of solar cells. For example, cadmium (Cd) is used in cadmium telluride (CdTe)-based thin film solar cells as a semiconductor material to convert solar energy into electrical energy, which is a highly toxic substance. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health considered cadmium dust and vapors as potential carcinogenic matters that can cause cancer if exposed directly to the workers [74].

21.5.1.2. Disposal and recycling of a solar panel

At the decommissioning stage of solar PV panels after completion of their expected operation period of around 25 years, their disposal on an ordinary landfill site is quite a challenge for local authorities due to the presence of hazardous materials contained in them. With the rapid growth of solar market demand nowadays, it is expected that large quantities of PV panels will be disposed of at the end of their life. Hence, proper planning is needed to handle future solar PV wastes, such as providing a dedicated landfill, special municipal incinerators, or an effective recycling management system. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to handle and will face similar problems as existing electronics product wastes [75,76].

21.5.1.3. Use of large land area

The construction of solar farms on a large scale needs land clearing, which adversely affects the natural vegetation, wildlife, and their habitats [74]. In order to achieve optimum power generation, any shading to the PV panels caused by tall trees and bushes needs to be removed and maintained. The removal of trees will reduce the absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; hence, this will defeat the purpose of reducing the greenhouse gases [77].

21.5.2. Wave energy

Most environmental concern associated with wave energy is related to marine life. The construction work and laying of submarine power cables during installation of the wave energy generator could disturb the seafloor sediments and result in the loss of habitats for some marine life. The noise produced during construction and operation of the generator may also potentially harm the aquatic life. The wave energy device may alter the sea current and affect certain fish populations in relation to their feeding and breeding grounds. There are also risks of marine life colliding with tidal turbine blades. The operation of a wave energy generator and the power cables may produce electromagnetic field (EMFs) that can directly affect marine life, such as decreases in fertility. Moreover, the EMFs may cause interference with migration and navigation, detection of prey, or escape from predators [78,79].

21.5.3. Wind energy

Wind energy is recognized as one of the cleanest energy sources and has shown rapid growth recently. The technology used has considerably matured with comparatively low costs, which has made people build more wind farms. However, development of large wind farms has caused adverse environmental issues. Although the magnitude of the impact is considered small, it should not be ignored. Some of the potential impacts are discussed as follows.

21.5.3.1. Effect on wildlife

Wind turbines could impose a danger to birds when they collide with rotating blades or its structure, such as tower, nacelles, or guy cables, which may cause severe injury or fatality. Migratory birds are potentially at high risk of hitting the rotor blades if the arrangement of the wind farm is within the fight path of their migration routes. . It is understood that birds have an ability to detect obstacles and change their direction immediately to avoid collision. However, for these migratory birds, extra effort to deviate from the route consumes their limited energy, and reduces their survival rates [80,81].
Moreover, the wind farm could also disturb local birds’ fauna. Construction of a wind farm could destroy their natural habitat and may create a physical barrier between their natural breeding and feeding behaviors. The spinning of the blades during operation may frighten the birds, hence limiting their natural territories. To reduce the effects on birds, authorities need to investigate migrating birds’ routes and nesting areas before deciding to build wind farms. The use of aviation radar to detect flocks of migrating birds and temporarily stop the operation may reduce the danger to birds from spinning turbine blades.

21.5.3.2. Noise

Noise produced by the wind turbine system may disturb surrounding residents especially at night where conditions are tranquil. There are two sources of noise produced by wind turbines, which are mechanical and aerodynamic noise. Mechanical noise comes from turbines’ internal gear, generator, and other auxiliary components but is not affected by the size of turbine blades. Proper insulation during manufacturing and installation could reduce this noise level. In contrast, the aerodynamic noise comes from blades passing through the air and is proportional to the blades’ swept area, wind speed, and speed of rotation. For example, a bigger size wind turbine is noisier than a smaller one. To mitigate the effect of noise, there should be a minimum distance between the residents and the wind farms; this practice varies between countries and regions.

21.5.3.3. Visual impact on landscaping

Erection of wind turbines could disturb the natural scenery. In addition, flickers caused by the turbine blades’ movement could disturb residents. However, this problem is highly subjective to public perception and their personal feelings. Nevertheless, there should be a minimum distance between the residents and the wind farms to minimize the effect.

21.5.4. Fuel cells

A hydrogen fuel cell requires hydrogen and oxygen to generate electricity through an electrochemical process. It is expected in the near future that fuel cells will be extensively used to generate electricity due to their clean by-product, which is water. The development of fuel cell technology especially for electric vehicles will significantly reduce greenhouse gases and further mitigate global warming issues. The main obstacle that hinders the application of the hydrogen fuel cell is the hydrogen supply itself. Even though hydrogen is available abundantly as compounds on earth such as water and hydrocarbons, the processes of producing, storing, and transportation of hydrogen are costly and may release about 10−20% of hydrogen gas during operation. If all fossil fuel plants and transportation shifted to hydrogen in the future, the large amounts of hydrogen and water vapors will be released into the atmosphere, which will triple the amount of hydrogen that is released at present. This condition will deplete the ozone layer through excessive cooling of the stratosphere, enrich heterogeneous chemistry, create more the noctilucent clouds, as well as disturb tropospheric chemistry and atmosphere−biosphere interactions. The detrimental effects of these reactions will cause the ozone hole to become larger and last longer. Thus, the idea of shifting to a cleaner energy may cause another damaging consequence and even accelerate the global warming effect [82,83].
Furthermore, hydrogen is the raw material required for the electrochemical process in the fuel cell, which can be obtained from water, biomass, and fossil fuels. However, hydrogen supplies nowadays are produced from natural gas that releases carbon dioxide during the process. Thus, the greenhouse gases are still emitted in order to achieve this clean energy [84]. Moreover, the technology of fuel cells should be improved further as it is still in a growth stage; its technological maturity is predicted to be 2018 [85].

21.5.5. Geothermal energy

Geothermal energy is thermal energy generated and stored in the earth’s mantle layer. The geothermal power plants take hot fluid or steam from deep in the earth and then converted into electricity. This renewable energy resource offers many advantages over fossil fuels and is sustainable. However, several environmental concerns associated with geothermal energy are discussed as below.

21.5.5.1. Land disturbance

Active geothermal areas are normally located remotely or nearby national parks with sparse populations. The alteration and manipulation of land during construction and operation will change the landscape, natural features, and beautiful scenery. Deforestation to make way for geothermal energy development and its transmission lines may impact local flora and fauna. In addition, the geothermal plant power will become a potential source for noise during construction and drilling processes.

21.5.5.2. Atmospheric emission

Geothermal gases such as hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and methane are often discharged to the atmosphere and are harmful to the environment. Hydrogen sulfide is the most dominant noncondensable gas in geothermal fluids. It is of concern to the environment due to its smell and toxicity. When dissolved in water aerosols, it will react with oxygen to form sulfur dioxide that leads to acid rain, while methane emission is a concern for its global warming potential. In addition, there are also trace amounts of mercury, ammonia, and boron that threaten the soil and surface water near the power plant [86].

21.5.6. Biomass

Biomass in the form of charcoal and wood were used as primary fuel for energy until the nineteenth century when fossil fuel-based energy such as coal and gasoline had been used on a large scale. Today, the use of biomass as a source of energy has become attractive due to its carbon neutral nature, unlike the carbon emitting fossil fuels that cause global warming. Its carbon neutral nature is the process of releasing CO2 to the atmosphere from burning biomass, which has been captured from the atmosphere during photosynthesis [87]. Therefore the carbon cycle between absorption by plant and emission to the atmosphere is at equilibrium. An example of biomass sources to produce biofuel for energy generation is food crops such as sugarcane, corn, soybean, and palm oil. Wastes from agriculture, sawmill factories, foods, and municipal solid waste are also useful as sources of biomass energy.
The extensive usage of biomass still has detrimental environmental concerns that must be taken care of. For example, biomass energy cultivation requires large areas of land and substantial amounts of water. The intensive harvesting of biomass will increase soil erosion, water degradation, and removal of nutrients. In addition, the use of pesticide and fertilizer could pollute water resources. Replacement of primary forests and natural ecosystems with massive energy crops plantations will significantly change natural habitats and food source for wildlife.
Another important issue is that the demand for biomass energy has created competition between crops used as food and biofuel supplies. This issue increases food prices in some regions because farmers have shifted to biofuel crops due to better earnings. It is considered inappropriate to convert food into fuel in areas where there are still many people suffering from starvation and malnutrition in order to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.

21.6. Summary

Energy is a very important driving force to improve the standard of living and develop a country. Most of the developing countries are struggling to meet their energy demands for their populations and economic growth. With limited resources, they are unable to obtain expensive technology to filter out greenhouse gases before emitting them to the environment. As an example the installation cost of scrubbers on existing coal power plants will raise up to 30% of the capital cost [88]. Furthermore, these efficient technologies will also increase the existing cost of electricity. Efforts toward mitigating global warming issues are certainly complex since these efforts require full commitment from developed and developing countries. The rich and developed countries are keen to maintain their standard of living. However, the developing countries are struggling to increase their standard of living; their citizens also have the right to sustainable development because parts of their population are still in poverty [89].
In order to decarbonize our economic growth, nuclear power is another better option to supply electricity. It was once claimed by Lewis Strauss, the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, that it was “too cheap to meter.” In 1956, the Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation showed an advertisement that claimed that a pound of uranium can supply electricity for the whole of Chicago in one full day as compared to 3 million pounds of coal. Its huge and enormous energy although cheap has an interesting future and has caused many countries to depend on nuclear power, such as France with 75% of its electricity generation from nuclear energy. However, this enormous and cheap energy has catastrophic effects. Society has to live with daily normal operating radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants even if it is monitored by legal authorities. Another critical issue that has encouraged several countries to phase out their nuclear power plants is the risk of explosion of nuclear reactors, which happened at Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in 2011. Although the advancement of nuclear technology has already matured there are still unforeseen factors such as natural disasters that can damage the plant. The radioactive wastes from a nuclear disaster are barely removed and proper safety precautions need to be followed in order to clean up the mess for the next thousand years. These are the expensive cradle-to-grave nuclear energy technology impacts that should be faced by our society for energy security.
The idea of transforming energy supply from fossil fuel and nuclear to totally relying on renewable energy is a serious effort that has been done, for example, by Germany. Although it is quite ambitious and ambiguous, the effort should be praised since it may envisage the future of sustainable energy that offers energy security and reduces the cost of electricity in the long run. Furthermore, energy efficient technology is also emphasized to reduce energy consumption for optimum usage and still supports their industrial baselines [90]. The idea of implementing low carbon cities by many countries, such as Bristol, Leeds, and Manchester in United Kingdom, Jalisco and Tabasco in Mexico, and Petaling Jaya in Malaysia, can create awareness and visualize sustainable energy as a pioneer project for the future, which may not only require diversifying energy supply to renewable energy but also efficiently using the electrical energy [91]. Besides, an incentive of using 100% renewable energies has been widely accepted and is being implemented in many countries such as New Zealand, Australia, Cameroon, Ghana, and other countries for their cities, residences, and business centers [92]. With advancement of renewable energy technology, a greener future will sustain the fair development of developed and developing countries.

Problems

1. Explain the natural greenhouse effects and their relations to the global warming issue.
2. What will happen if the global temperature keeps increasing above the limit established by United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen?
3. What is sulfur oxide and determine the most hazardous gas among the sulfur oxides.
4. Explain the health problems that may occur if humans are exposed excessively to sulfur dioxide.
5. Describe the health effects of nitrogen dioxide.
6. What happens if nitrogen oxides are released into rivers and streams?
7. Differentiate between good ozone and bad ozone.
8. Identify a serious environmental problem from a chain reaction between sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in the atmosphere.
9. Discuss acid rain environmental effects with necessary examples.
10. How can carbon dioxide be a poisonous gas instead of an essential gas in the atmosphere.
11. Compute Problem 1 if oil and natural gas are used in generating electrical energy with 117,000 pounds of CO2 per billion BTU of energy input for natural gas and 164,000 pounds of CO2 per billion BTU of energy input for oil.
12. Estimate the carbon footprint for a 70-W LED television if it is turned on for (a) 24 h, (b) 8 h,or (c) 4 h if coal is used to produce the electricity. Assume the coefficient of carbon footprint for coal electricity generation is 1 kg CO2/kWh.
13. Compare the carbon footprint calculated in Problem 12 if an LED TV is turned on for 24 h by using solar PV, wind, and hydroelectric (see Table 21.5).
14. Differentiate the particulate matter general term of PM10 and PM2.5.
15. Propose several methods to control suspended particle matters in the atmosphere.
16. Define Legionnaires’ disease and describe the main sources of this disease.
17. Justify the advantage of nuclear energy in terms of resources and carbon footprint.
18. Identify the damaging effects of excessive radioactive emissions to the environment.
19. Explain the meaning of LOCA and why it is so important in a nuclear power plant.
20. Provide several examples of tragedies that have occurred due to LOCA in nuclear power plants.
21. Give recommendations on radioactive waste management for different types of radioactive wastes.
22. Discuss the disposal of permanent radioactive waste worldwide and its effect to the environment.
23. Compare the environmental impacts caused by impoundment type and run-of-river type hydroelectric power plants.
24. Identify recommended distances and noise limits between a wind farm and residents implemented by various countries and regions.
25. Determine hazardous material associated with the manufacturing of a silicon-based PV module.
Table 21.5
Carbon footprint of renewable energy for production of 1 kWh of electricity [37]
Fuel type CO2 footprint
PV 0.2204
Wind 0.03306
Hydroelectric 0.0088

References

[1] Scholz R, Beckmann M, Pieper C, Muster M, Weber R. Considerations on providing the energy needs using exclusively renewable sources: Energiewende in Germany. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2014;35:109125.

[2] Research Cooperation Renewable Energies (FVEE), Energiekonzept 2050, 2010.

[3] Smart Energy for Europe Platform, Joint Norwegian-German declaration: for a long term collaboration to promote renewables and climate protection. 2012.

[4] WRI (World Resources Institute), Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) 2.0: WRI’s climate data explorer, 2014. [Online]. Available from: http://cait2.wri.org/.

[5] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2013, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html; 2015.

[6] Nag PK. Power plant engineering. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited; 2008.

[7] Richardson K, Steffen W, Liverman D. Climate change: global risks, challenges & decisions. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

[8] Kriegler E, Weyant JP, Blanford GJ, Krey V, Clarke L, Edmonds J, Fawcett A, Luderer G, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose SK, Tavoni M, van Vuuren DP. The role of technology for achieving climate policy objectives: overview of the EMF 27 study on global technology and climate policy strategies. Clim Change. 2014;123:353367.

[9] Stern N. What is the economics of climate change? World Econ. 2006;7(2):110.

[10] World Health Organization (WHO), WHO air quality guidelines: Global Update 2005. 2005, pp. 1–21.

[11] World Health Organization (WHO), Air quality guidelines for Europe, 2nd ed., No. 91. 2000.

[12] Greater London Authority, 50 years on: the struggle for air quality in London since the great smog of December 1952. 2002, pp. 1−40.

[13] Larøi V, Karlsen H, Skinner R. Generations. ABB Marine and Cranes. 2012:77.

[14] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Sulfur dioxide: health. [Online]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/health.html.

[15] Flynn D. Thermal power plant simulation and control. London, United Kingdom: The Institution of Electrical Engineers; 2003.

[16] Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage. Air quality fact sheet: sulfur dioxide, https://www.environment.gov.au/protection/publications/factsheet-sulfur-dioxide-so2; 2005.

[17] Balmes JR, Fine JM, Sheppard D. Symptomatic bronchoconstriction after short term inhalation of sulfur dioxide. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1987;136(5):11171121.

[18] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Fact sheet revisions to the primary national ambient air quality standard, monitoring network and data reporting requirements for sulfur dioxide. pp. 1–6; 2010.

[19] El-Wakil MM. Powerplant technology. Singapore: McGraw-Hill, Inc; 1985.

[20] Stepuro TL, Zinchuk VV. Nitric oxide effect on the hemoglobin-oxygen affinity. J Physiol Pharmacol. 2006;57(1):2938.

[21] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Nitrogen Dioxide. [Online]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/nitrogenoxides/.

[22] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, pp. 2–3;. 1998.

[23] Krupnick A, McConnell V, Austin D, Cannon M, Stoessell T, Morton B, The Chesapeake Bay and the control of NOx emissions: a policy analysis, 1998.

[24] El-Sharkawi MA. Electric energy an introduction. 3rd ed. CRC Press; 2013.

[25] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Ozone: good up high bad nearby. Office of Air and Radiation, pp. 1–2. 2003.

[26] Björn LO. Stratospheric ozone, ultraviolet radiation, and cryptogams. Biol Conserv. 2007;135:326333.

[27] Bjorn LO. Photobiology the science of light and life. Netherlands: Springer; 2002.

[28] de Jager D, Manning M, Kuijpers L. IPCC/TEAP Special Report: safeguarding the ozone layer and the global climate system: issues related to hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons, Technical Summary; 2007.

[29] Horneman A, Stute M, Schlosser P, Smethie W, Santella N, Ho DT, Mailloux B, Gorman E, Zheng Y, van Geen A. Degradation rates of CFC-11, CFC-12 and CFC-113 in anoxic shallow aquifers of Araihazar, Bangladesh. J Contam Hydrol. 2008;97:2741.

[30] Sheehan JF. Acid rain: a continuing national tragedy. Elizabethtown, NY: Adirondack Council; 1998.

[31] Nag PK. Power plant engineering. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited; 2008.

[32] Johnson E. Charcoal versus LPG grilling: a carbon-footprint comparison. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2009;29(6):370378.

[33] Dormer A, Finn DP, Ward P, Cullen J. Carbon footprint analysis in plastics manufacturing. J Clean Prod. 2013;51:133141.

[34] Vergé XPC, Maxime D, Dyer JA, Desjardins RL, Arcand Y, Vanderzaag A. Carbon footprint of Canadian dairy products: calculations and issues. J. Dairy Sci. 2013;96(9):60916104.

[35] Tukker A, Jansen B. Environmental impacts of products: a detailed review of studies. J Ind Ecol. 2006;10(3):159182.

[36] Kenny T, Gray NF. Comparative performance of six carbon footprint models for use in Ireland. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2009;29(1):16.

[37] Keyhani A. Design of smart power grid renewable energy systems. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2011.

[38] Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas 1998 Issues and Trends, 1999.

[39] Pope CA. Health effects of particulate matter air pollution. EPA Wood Smoke Health Effects Webinar. 2011.

[40] Steen M. Greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel fired power generation systems, http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC21207; 2001.

[41] IEA Clean Coal Centre, Particulate emission control technologies. [Online]. Available from: http://www.iea-coal.org.uk/site/ieacoal/databases/ccts/particulate-emissions-control-technologies.

[42] Klingspor JS, Vernon JL. Particulate control for coal combustion. London, United Kingdom: IEA Coal Research; 1988.

[43] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Particulate matter (PM) research. [Online]. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/airscience/air-particulatematter.htm.

[44] Atlas RM. Legionella: from environmental habitats to disease pathology, detection and control. Environ Microbiol. 1999;1:283293.

[45] Bartram J, Chartier Y, Lee JV, Pond K, Surman-Lee S. Legionella and the prevention of legionellosis, vol. 14. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization Press; 2008.

[46] Fraser DW, Tsai TR, Orenstein W, Parkin WE, Beecham HJ, Sharrar RG, Harris J, Mallison GF, Martin SM, McDade JE, Shepard CC, Brachman PS. Legionnaires’ disease − description of an epidemic of pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 1977;(297):11891197.

[47] Legionella management. [Online]. Available from: http://www.ges-water.co.uk/legionella-management/.

[48] Fliermans CB, Cherry WB, Orrison LH, Smith SJ, Tison DL, Pope DH. Ecological distribution of Legionella pneumophila. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1981;41(1):916.

[49] MacFarlane JT, Worboys M. Showers, sweating and suing: Legionnaires’ disease and “new” infections in Britain, 1977−90. Med Hist. 2012;56:7293.

[50] Osawa K, Shigemura K, Abe Y, Jikimoto T, Yoshida H, Fujisawa M, Arakawa S. A case of nosocomial Legionella pneumonia associated with a contaminated hospital cooling tower. J Infect Chemother. 2014;20(1):6870.

[51] Keong CY. Energy demand, economic growth, and energy efficiency − the Bakun dam-induced sustainable energy policy revisited. Energy Policy. 2005;33:679689.

[52] Xu X, Tan Y, Yang G. Environmental impact assessments of the Three Gorges Project in China: issues and interventions. Earth-Science Rev. 2013;124:115125.

[53] World Nuclear Association, Nuclear power in the world today, 2015. [Online]. Available from: www.world-nuclear.org/info/info8.html.

[54] The science of nuclear power. [Online]. Available from: http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower.

[55] Hatamura Y, Abe S, Fuchigami M, Kasahara N, Iino K. The 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident. United Kingdom: Woodhead Publishing/Elsevier Ltd.; 2015.

[56] Bird DK, Haynes K, van den Honert R, McAneney J, Poortinga W. Nuclear power in Australia: a comparative analysis of public opinion regarding climate change and the Fukushima disaster. Energy Policy. 2014;65:644653.

[57] Hirose K. 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident: summary of regional radioactive deposition monitoring results. J Environ Radioact. 2012;111:1317.

[58] Onda Y, Kato H, Hoshi M, Takahashi K, Nguyen ML. Soil sampling and analytical strategies for mapping fallout in nuclear emergencies based on the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant accident. J Environ Radioact. 2014;139:300307.

[59] Miyake Y, Matsuzaki H, Fujiwara T, Saito T, Yamagata T, Honda M, Muramatsu Y. Isotopic ratio of radioactive iodine (129I/131I) released from Fukushima Daiichi NPP accident. Geochem J. 2012;46:327333.

[60] Hatch M, Ostroumova E, Brenner A, Federenko Z, Gorokh Y, Zvinchuk O, Shpak V, Tereschenko V, Tronko M, Mabuchi K. Non-thyroid cancer in Northern Ukraine in the post-Chernobyl period: short report. Cancer Epidemiol. 2015;39(3):279283.

[61] Bouville A, Likhtarev IA, Kovgan LN, Minenko VF, Shinkarev SM, Drozdovitch VV. Radiation dosimetry for highly contaminated Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian populations, and for less contaminated populations in Europe. Health Phys. 2007;93(5):487501.

[62] World Nuclear Association, Nuclear radiation and health effects, 2015. [Online]. Available from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Safety-and-Security/Radiation-and-Health/Nuclear-Radiation-and-Health-Effects/.

[63] Schobert HH. Energy and society: an introduction. New York: Taylor & Francis; 2002.

[64] Mahmoodi R, Shahriari M, Zolfaghari A, Minuchehr A. An advanced method for determination of loss of coolant accident in nuclear power plants. Nucl Eng Des. 2011;241(6):20132019.

[65] Hache G, Chung HM, The history of LOCA embrittlement criteria, in Conference: 28th Water Reactor Safety Information Meeting, 2001, pp. 1–32.

[66] Grosse MK, Stuckert J, Steinbrück M, Kaestner AP, Hartmann S. Neutron radiography and tomography investigations of the secondary hydriding of zircaloy-4 during simulated loss of coolant nuclear accidents. Phys Procedia. 2013;43:294306.

[67] Chung HEEM. Fuel behavior under loss-of-coolant accident situations. Nucl Eng Technol. 2005;37:327362.

[68] Taylor D. Manitoba’s forgotten nuclear accident. Winnipeg Free Press; 2011. Available from: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/manitobas-forgotten-nuclear-accident-118563039.html.

[69] United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three mile island accident, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.pdf; 2013.

[70] Dempsey CH. Ichthyoplankton entrainment. J Fish Biol. 1988;33:93102.

[71] Weinberg AM. Social institution and nuclear energy. Science. 1972;177:2734.

[72] World Nuclear Association, Waste management: overview. [Online]. Available from: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Nuclear-Wastes/Waste-Management-Overview/.

[73] Fanchi JR, Fanchi CJ. Energy in the 21st century. 2nd ed. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd; 2011.

[74] Aman MM, Solangi KH, Hossain MS, Badarudin A, Jasmon GB, Mokhlis H, Bakar AHA, Kazi S. A review of safety, health and environmental (SHE) issues of solar energy system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2015;41:11901204.

[75] Cyrs WD, Avens HJ, Capshaw ZA, Kingsbury RA, Sahmel J, Tvermoes BE. Landfill waste and recycling: use of a screening-level risk assessment tool for end-of-life cadmium telluride (CdTe) thin-film photovoltaic (PV) panels. Energy Policy. 2014;68:524533.

[76] Bakhiyi B, Labrèche F, Zayed J. The photovoltaic industry on the path to a sustainable future − environmental and occupational health issues. Environ Int. 2014;73:224234.

[77] Dessouky MO. The environmental impact of large scale solar energy projects on the MENA deserts: best practices for the DESERTEC initiative in IEEE EuroCon 2013, 2013, no. July, pp. 784–788.

[78] Lin L, Yu H. Offshore wave energy generation devices: impacts on ocean bio-environment. Acta Ecol Sin. 2012;32(3):117122.

[79] Frid C, Andonegi E, Depestele J, Judd A, Rihan D, Rogers SI, Kenchington E. The environmental interactions of tidal and wave energy generation devices. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2012;32(1):133139.

[80] Dai K, Bergot A, Liang C, Xiang W-N, Huang Z. Environmental issues associated with wind energy – a review. Renew Energy. 2015;75:911921.

[81] Leung DYC, Yang Y. Wind energy development and its environmental impact: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2012;16(1):10311039.

[82] Cartlidge E, Fuel cells: environmental friend or foe? 2003. [Online]. Available from: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2003/jun/13/fuel-cells-environmental-friend-or-foe.

[83] Tromp TK, Shia R-L, Allen M, Eiler JM, Yung YL. Potential environmental impact of a hydrogen economy on the stratosphere. Science. 2003;300(2003):17401742.

[84] Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Hydrogen fuel cell. [Online]. Available from: http://www.eesi.org/topics/hydrogen-fuel-cells/description.

[85] Ho JC, Saw EC, Lu LYY, Liu JS. Technological barriers and research trends in fuel cell technologies: a citation network analysis. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2014;82:6679.

[86] Bayer P, Rybach L, Blum P, Brauchler R. Review on life cycle environmental effects of geothermal power generation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2013;26:446463.

[87] Abbasi T, Abbasi SA. Biomass energy and the environmental impacts associated with its production and utilization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev. 2010;14:919937.

[88] United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Air pollution control technology fact sheet, http://www3.epa.gov/ttncatc1/dir1/fcyclon.pdf; 2002.

[89] Hodgson PE. Energy, the environment and climate change. London, United Kingdom: Imperial College Press; 2010.

[90] Morris C, Pehnt M. Energy transition the German Energiewende. [Online]. Available from: http://energytransition.de/.

[91] The Carbon Trust of the UK, Low carbon cities, 2014. [Online]. Available from: http://www.lowcarboncities.co.uk/cms/.

[92] Renewable 100 Policy Institute, Go 100% renewable energy. [Online]. Available from: http://www.go100percent.org/cms/index.php?id=4.

..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset