Jump to content

Talk:Environmental impact of electricity generation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amn5526.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury emissions

[edit]

What about mercury emission from coal plants? I expect that the mercury emissions are a bigger problem than the trace radioisotopes. The article doesn't mention any controversies at all, for example, as to the issue of net reduction of emission of CO2 by displacement of fossil power by hydroelectric projects, and resulting reservoir emissions of CO2 and methane. Time for me to do some fact-digging and contribute. --Wtshymanski 17:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please do! I think there's also some more I could add about the negative effects of hydro power... Andrew 04:52, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

is workers dieing an environmental concern

[edit]

Is the death of workers an environmentla concern? I'm thinking of people dieing while constructing plants and mining resources. But is this a good place? Even if you don't veiw 'environment' as broadly as the law does, I think that gets to the point of this document but perhaps others disagree. Thougts? Pdbailey 23:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, not really, but I think what you're asking is whether it belongs in the article. That one's a bit harder to answer; the problem is that any large negineering work kills a few workers (less now than they used to). So it's a bit hard to balance these costs. I'd say focus on the effects on non-invloved people and the environment. But if you can add it nicely, go ahead. --Andrew 06:01, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
It's not usual to consider construction injuries and fatalities as an "environmental" issue. You can't balance "costs" against "lives", they are incommensurable. I'll have to look at the article on coal - that's the place to describe the risks of coal mining, since coal has uses other than electricity generation. "Occupational health and safety" is a different topic from "environmental concerns", I think. So, I wouldn't expect to see more than a pointer to "occupational health and safety" as a related but separate issue. --Wtshymanski 21:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the replys. I think the two of you are right. While I would be more interested in reading an artile about 'total societal costs of electricy generation' this is not that article and it stands on its own as a good article. Cheers, Pdbailey 16:23, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i understand that concerns in of itself requires negative aspects to be discussed about the topic. However, there needs to be additional information that supports these claims, otherwise they are merly speculation. (see FUD). Please provide wikilinks and external sources with more information to round off the edges and increase the overall value of the content.

The Wind Energy section is extremely biased!

[edit]

There seems to be hardly any cons there at all, only pros. I thought this goes against Wiki's commitment to Neutrality. I signed up just to point this out!

Cons of wind power are more than just the heritage/landscape ones mentioned in the article. For example, the variability of wind - capacity factors are around 30% in most cases. Any large deployment of wind turbines requires an equally large deployment of controllable "back-up" generation to make up for the shortfall when the wind doesn't blow, and even in the windiest areas, weeks can go by with no wind at all.

The circa 300 cubic metres per large turbine of concrete used in the base creates huge CO2 emissions and the lime leaches into the soil making it alkaline.

The infrastructure needed for construction - new roads etc are often built just for construction and maintenance, and have no other traffic.

Noticable low-frequency vibrations to residents within 0.5miles during times when a turbine is downwind of another turbine.

The way that windfarms drive a wedge between communities, forcing old friends, neigbours and families to be either for or against. Suicides have been commited which are directly attributable to the divisions caused.

I realise I have no references for all this - but I just wanted to point out the blatant bias of the Wind section in the hope that an Administrator will correct this. The neutrality of Wikipedia is it's most valuable strength.

Marley909 23:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator will correct this. Fixing this article is your civic duty! If, however, you can find sources for things like the concrete used, I would love to see them. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that frequently the transmission infrastructure is not positioned to bring power away from major wind farms, but instead from existing power generating facilities (which are not necessarily where the wind blows). Additional lines would have to be built, for new wind farms, with all the right-of-way issues this brings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbkehoe (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have noticed a contradiction in this article and information from Vattenfall (a power producing company). My concerns are about the property in italics:

"Greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution produced by its construction are small and declining. There are no emissions or pollution produced by its operation." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_electricity_generation#Wind_power)

According to Vattenfall's home page the released amount of carbon dioxide is about 13g/kWh for wind power, and that is a lot compared to other figures on the site: 

- The total amount of released CO2 from the Swedish electric power supply is 6,3 g/kWh

- Nuclear power 3,3 g CO_2 /kWh
- Hydroelectricity 4,4 g CO_2 /kWh

I may agree that the released amount of carbon dioxide is low compared to the combustion of fossil fuels, but that doesn't make it low, or does it?

The source that contradicts this Wikipedia page (it is in Swedish): http://www.vattenfall.se/sv/elens-ursprung.htm

I hope "discussion" is the right place to write this, and I hope that someone with knowledge in the subject (and good English) will read this and take action whether I have noticed something you consider faulty or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.142.154.22 (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


No Mention of Nuclear

[edit]

There's a link to this article from Nuclear Power, which includes a nice (if brief) discussion of the environmental impacts of nuclear power generation. I'd suggest that it should be moved to this page (and the link retained, of course), which would 'complete the set' on this page, and make it easier to find that information. Gholson 12:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Management of the material across the different articles is difficult. I just created a new article about the environmental effects of nuclear power - and one of my motivations for doing so was that this was sort of a POV fork, where poorly structured and weaselly statements worked their way in when it wouldn't have been allowed in nuclear power. But now that I've done that, I find someone has created a new summary here that's very to the point and I'm rather happy to see. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 07:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Water usage data

[edit]

The difference between nuclear electricity generation and fossile fuels (second table, third data column) seems to be too large. While nuclear generation is less efficient and fossile fuel plants discharge some of the waste energy in the flue gases, a ratio of 1200 vs 2700 is bigger than any figures I come across.

Looking at the source for the second table: "Report to Congress on the Interdependence of Energy and Water", the figures given for tower cooling are:
  • fossil, biomass, waste: 300-480 gal/MWh
  • nuclear: 400-720 gal/MWh
In liters these are respectively 1140-1820 and 1520-2740. In other words, the highest estimate is quoted for nuclear power, the lowest for fossil fuels (except coal where both are mentioned) and biomass. Ssscienccce (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Environmental impact of electricity generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Environmental impact of electricity generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Environmental impact of electricity generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Environmental impact of electricity generation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of references and inline cites

[edit]

No question this important article needs more references. There are whole sections without a single reference. I have made a start GRALISTAIR (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

[edit]

Lead says this article only operational impact - I think it should cover all impact - what do you think? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deleted "This page looks exclusively at the operational environmental impact of electricity generation." Chidgk1 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this hard to follow old table? If so please undo my change

[edit]

Reference: Nuclear Energy Institute factsheet[dead link] using EPRI data and other sources.

Electricity industry (incl. gas & liquid fuels) value chain – water consumption,[1] LCA emission intensity & capacity factor
Feedstock/ fuel/ resource Raw material production

L/MW·h [L/GJ]

Fermentation/ processing/refining

L/MW·h [L/GJ]

Electricity generation with closed-loop cooling Total water consumption

L/MW·h[1]

CO2 -eq

kg/MW·he

SO2kg/MW·h NOxkg/MW·h H2Skg/MW·h Particulatekg/MW·h Cdmg/MW·h Hgmg/MW·h On-site accidents

deaths/TW·yr

Average capacity factor

%

Traditional oil 10.8–25.2

[3–7]

90–234

[25–65]

1,200~ 1,300.8–1,459.2 893[2] 814[3] 43.3[4] 9[5] 60~[6]
Enhanced oil recovery 180-32,400

[50-9,000]

90–234

[25–65]

1,200~ 1,470–33,834 893[2] 814[3] 43.3[4] 9[5] 60~[6]
Oil sands 252-6,480*

[70-1,800*]

90–234

[25–65]

1,200~ 1,542–7,914 893[2] 814[3] 43.3[4] 9[5] 60~[6]
Biofuels:

corn

32,400–360,000

[9,000–100,000]

169.2–180

Ethanol:[47-50]

1,200~ 33,769.2–361,380 893~[2] 814~[3] 9~[5] 52~[2]
Biofuels:

soybean

180,000–972,000

[50,000–270,000]

50.4Biodiesel:[14] 1,200~ 181,250.4–973,250.4 893~[2] 814~[3] 9~[5] 52~[2]
Coal 20–270

[5–70]

504–792-to-liquids:[140-220] 200-2,000[7] Coal-to-liquids:N.C.

220-2,270

B:863–941

Br:1175[8]

4.71[3] 1.95[3] 0[3] 1.01[3] H:3.1-

L:6.2[4]

14-

61[5][9]

342[10] 70–90[6]
Traditional gas Minimal 25.2[7] 700 725.2 577:cc[8]

(491–655)

550[3] 0.2[4] 0.1-

0.6[9]

85[10] 60~[6]
Natural gas:

shale gas

129.6–194.4

[36–54]

25.2[7] 700 854.8–919.6 751:oc[8]

(627–891)

550[3] 0.2[4] 0.1-

0.6[9]

85[10] 60~[6]
U nuclear 170–570 See:Raw Material 2,700 2,870–3,270 60–65 (10–130)[8] 0.5[4] 8[10] 86.8[11]-92[6]
Hydroelectric 17,000:Evap.Avg 17,000 15[8] 0.03[4] 883[10] 42[2]
Geothermal power Fresh:0–20[3]

5,300

Fresh:0–20[3]

5,300

TL0–1[2]

TH91–122

0.16[3] 0[3] 0.08[3] 0[3] 73-90+[2]
Conc. solar 2,800–3,500 2,800–3,500 40±15# 56.2–72.9[12]
Photovoltaics Minimal Minimal 106[8] 0.3–0.9[4] 14[2]-19[13]
Wind power Minimal Minimal 21[8] 271[14] 21[2]-40[13][15]
Tidal power Minimal 55,917.68[16] 26.3[16] 0.0622[16] 0.159[16] 0.032[16] 46[16]
Feedstock/ fuel/ resource Raw material production

L/MW·h [L/GJ]

Fermentation/ processing/refining

L/MW·h [L/GJ]

Electricity generation with closed-loop cooling L/MW·h Total water consumption

L/MW·h[1]

CO2-eq

kg/MW·he

SO2

kg/MW·h

NOx

kg/MW·h

H2S

kg/MW·h

Particulate

kg/MW·h

Cd

mg/MW·h

Hg

mg/MW·h

Lethal on-site accidents

deaths/TW·yr

Average capacity factor

%

Source(s): Adapted from US Department of Energy, Energy Demand on Water Resources. Report to Congress on the Interdependence of Energy and Water, December 2006 (except where noted).

*Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) estimate. #Educated estimate.

Water Requirements for Existing and Emerging Thermoelectric Plant Technologies. US Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, August 2008.

Note(s): 3.6 GJ = gigajoule(s) == 1 MW·h = megawatt-hour(s), thus 1 L/GJ = 3.6 L/MW·h. B = Black coal (supercritical)-(new subcritical), Br = Brown coal (new subcritical), H = Hard coal, L = Lignite, cc = combined cycle, oc = open cycle, TL = low-temperature/closed-circuit (geothermal doublet), TH = high-temperature/open-circuit. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c World Economic Forum; Cambridge Energy Research Associates (1 February 2009). "Thirsty Energy: Water and Energy in the 21st Century" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 July 2011. Retrieved 1 November 2009. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Fridleifsson, Ingvar B.; Bertani, Ruggero; Huenges, Ernst; Lund, John W.; Ragnarsson, Arni; Rybach, Ladislaus (11 February 2008). O. Hohmeyer and T. Trittin (ed.). The possible role and contribution of geothermal energy to the mitigation of climate change (PDF). IPCC Scoping Meeting on Renewable Energy Sources. Luebeck, Germany. pp. 59–80.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Lund, John W. (June 2007), "Characteristics, Development and utilization of geothermal resources" (PDF), Geo-Heat Centre Quarterly Bulletin, vol. 28, no. 2, Klamath Falls, Oregon: Oregon Institute of Technology, pp. 1–9, ISSN 0276-1084, archived from the original (PDF) on 17 June 2010, retrieved 16 April 2009
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Alsema, E.A.; Wild – Scholten, M.J. de; Fthenakis, V.M. Environmental impacts of PV electricity generation – a critical comparison of energy supply options Abstract ECN, September 2006; 7p. Presented at the 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference and Exhibition, Dresden, Germany, 4–8 September 2006.
  5. ^ a b c d e f Archived 3 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ a b c d e f g "Wind Power: Capacity Factor, Intermittency, and what happens when the wind doesn't blow?" (PDF). Renewable Energy Research Laboratory, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 October 2008. Retrieved 16 October 2008.
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference eskom1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ a b c d e f g ISA, University of Sydney (2006). "Life-cycle energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 30 November 2006. Retrieved 4 November 2009. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  9. ^ a b c Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change | Ontario.ca
  10. ^ a b c d e "Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors".
  11. ^ "15 Years of Progress" (PDF). World Association of Nuclear Operators. 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 March 2009. Retrieved 20 October 2008.
  12. ^ "Executive Summary: Assessment of Parabolic Trough and Power Tower Solar Technology Cost and Performance Forecasts" (PDF). National Renewable Energy Laboratory. October 2003. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2008. Retrieved 16 October 2008.
  13. ^ a b Laumer, John (June 2008). "Solar Versus Wind Power: Which Has The Most Stable Power Output?". Treehugger. Retrieved 16 October 2008.
  14. ^ Wind Energy – Accidents & Safety 1 May 2013 Paul Gipe "A Summary of Fatal Accidents in Wind Energy": Deaths per TWh of cumulative generation – 0.031
  15. ^ "Blowing Away the Myths" (PDF). The British Wind Energy Association. February 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 July 2007. Retrieved 16 October 2008.
  16. ^ a b c d e f Kaddoura, Mohamad; Tivander, Johan; Molander, Sverker (2020). "life cycle assessment of electricity generation from an array of subsea tidal kite prototypes". Energies. 13 (2): 456. doi:10.3390/en13020456.

Cannot find Tidal info in cite

[edit]

I deleted this because I cannot figure out where it is on the cite. If you can find it maybe consider putting this in the article I have excepted from instead of back in here as tidal is so rare at the moment

Tidal turbines
[edit]

Land constrictions such as straits or inlets can create high velocities at specific sites, which can be captured with the use of turbines. These turbines can be horizontal, vertical, open, or ducted and are typically placed near the bottom of the water column.

The main environmental concern with tidal energy is associated with blade strike and entanglement of marine organisms as high speed water increases the risk of organisms being pushed near or through these devices. As with all offshore renewable energies, there is also a concern about how the creation of EMF and acoustic outputs may affect marine organisms. Because these devices are in the water, the acoustic output can be greater than those created with offshore wind energy. Depending on the frequency and amplitude of sound generated by the tidal energy devices, this acoustic output can have varying effects on marine mammals (particularly those who echo-locate to communicate and navigate in the marine environment such as dolphins and whales). Tidal energy removal can also cause environmental concerns such as degrading far-field water quality and disrupting sediment processes. Depending on the size of the project, these effects can range from small traces of sediment build up near the tidal device to severely affecting nearshore ecosystems and processes.[1][need quotation to verify]

Tidal barrage
[edit]

Tidal barrages are dams built across the entrance to a bay or estuary that captures potential tidal energy with turbines similar to a conventional hydrokinetic dam. Energy is collected while the height difference on either side of the dam is greatest, at low or high tide. A minimum height fluctuation of 5 meters is required to justify the construction, so only 40 locations worldwide have been identified as feasible.

Installing a barrage may change the shoreline within the bay or estuary, affecting a large ecosystem that depends on tidal flats. Inhibiting the flow of water in and out of the bay, there may also be less flushing of the bay or estuary, causing additional turbidity (suspended solids) and less saltwater, which may result in the death of fish that act as a vital food source to birds and mammals. Migrating fish may also be unable to access breeding streams, and may attempt to pass through the turbines. The same acoustic concerns apply to tidal barrages. Decreasing shipping accessibility can become a socio-economic issue, though locks can be added to allow slow passage. However, the barrage may improve the local economy by increasing land access as a bridge. Calmer waters may also allow better recreation in the bay or estuary.[1][need quotation to verify] Chidgk1 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Tethys".

Need explanation for following wordings

[edit]

"while hydroelectricity has water usage from evaporation from the reservoirs." That is beyond my understanding, can anybody help explain? Thanks. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need explanation and clarification for the table in section of Water use

[edit]

"Natural gas 100 (once-through cycle) 800 (steam-cycle, cooling towers) 1,170 (steam-cycle with cooling towers)" 1. difference between "steam-cycle, cooling towers" and "steam-cycle with cooling towers"? and why the cycles use much more water than once-through cycle? Thank you. ThomasYehYeh (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Environmental_impact_of_electricity_generation&oldid=1212281250"