=======================Electronic Edition========================
RACHEL’S HAZARDOUS WASTE NEWS #252
—September 25, 1991—
News and resources for environmental justice.
——
Environmental Research Foundation
P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403
Fax (410) 263-8944; Internet: erf@igc.apc.org
==========
The Back issues and Index
are available
here.
The official RACHEL archive is here.
It’s updated constantly.
To subscribe, send E-mail to rachel-
weekly-
request@world.std.com
with the single word SUBSCRIBE in the message. It’s free.
===Previous Issue==========================================Next Issue===
SOME GOOD NEWS: WE COULD GIVE UP OIL
Our addiction to fossil fuels (oil and coal) is killing us. Oil
alone is responsible for smog, nitrogen oxides and fine
particles–in sum, urban air pollution–which is killing an
estimated 30,000 to 60,000 Americans each year.[1] To these
deaths we must add the regional and global consequences of oil
and coal-related pollution: regional destruction of forests,
crops and fish by acid rain, and the mounting threat of severe
floods, harsh droughts, devastating storms, large forest fires,
and ruinous declines in crop yield–which are the most likely
consequences of global warming.[2] Other, lesser, consequences of
our oil addiction include massive oil spills, wildlands
devastation by oil exploration activities, and occasional small
wars.
Now technical developments during the past eight years have made
it realistic to say we can end our use of fossil fuels in the
U.S. and worldwide. All we have to do is decide to do it.
A realistic alternative to oil and coal is hydrogen fuel produced
by solar energy, according to a thorough study by the Center for
Energy and Environmental Studies at Princeton University, funded
by the National Science Foundation.[3]
According to the study, hydrogen fuel produced from water by the
action of electricity–particularly electricity created by the
sun’s rays striking photovoltaic cells–offers a realistic
substitute for all our current fossil-fuel uses high-temperature
heat in industry, low-temperature heat for space-heating, and
liquid fuels for transportation. Hydrogen could do it all, the
study’s authors say, and solar cells are the best way to make the
hydrogen.
For many years, photovoltaic cells (“solar cells”) have been
expensive toys. A photovoltaic cell is a sheet of dark blue glass
with a pair of wires attached. When the cell is placed in direct
sunlight, electricity becomes available in the wires. There are
no moving parts except electrons moving inside the cell,
producing the electric current. (You can buy solar cells for as
little as $4.00 from Edmund Scientific, 101 East Gloucester Pike,
Barrington, NJ 08007-1380; phone (609) 547-8880.)
Technical advancements in the past 15 years–and especially in
the last eight years–have reduced the manufacturing costs for
solar cells steadily, and now such cells offer a realistic
alternative to nuclear power and to coal-burning power plants.
Furthermore, data from a decade of manufacturing now allows
conservative estimates of continued reductions in manufacturing
costs that are very likely to achieved in the next five years.
The age of solar hydrogen is at hand.
As a fuel, hydrogen is almost an environmental ist’s dream come
true. When hydrogen burns, it emits no carbon monoxide, no carbon
dioxide (the main source of global warming), no volatile organic
compounds (the main source of urban smog), no fine particles (the
chief killers in urban air), and no sulfur oxides (the main
source of acid rain). The only pollutant created is nitrogen
oxides, which can be controlled by various means (depending on
the kind of combustion device the hydrogen is fueling). The main
byproduct of hydrogen combustion is water vapor when the hydrogen
(H) and oxygen (O) combine into H2O.
The particular solar cell technology used as the basis for the
Princeton study is called amorphous silicon. Unlike older solar
calls which were usually round and an inch or two in diameter,
amorphous silicon cells are now manufactured by spraying a thin
film onto sheets of regular plate glass 4′ x 4′ or even larger.
The main raw material in such cells is silicon derived from sand,
so no raw material shortages stand in the way of large-scale
production.
Nuclear power stations and coal-fired power plants make best
economic sense when they are built large (1000 megaWatts [one
gigaWatt] is the average power plant today); each such plant
requires an investment of billions of dollars. In contrast, there
are no economies of scale to be achieved in solar-hydrogen plants
beyond a 5-to-10 megaWatt facility that would cost only $4 to $10
million to manufacture. These modular units could be combined to
give power output of any desired size to meet any foreseeable
need. Furthermore, the modular nature of solar-hydrogen plants
makes them ideal for construction of demonstration-scale units to
show that real alternatives to oil are within reach.
To achieve the necessary efficiencies to make solar-hydrogen
plants affordable as a total substitute for oil, they would have
to be sited where the sun shines most; the world’s deserts would
be the best candidates for location of such facilities. The
hydrogen would then be piped to consumers through gas pipelines.
The land area needed to produce hydrogen equivalent to all U.S.
oil would be 24,000 square miles–about 0.5% of total U.S. land
area, or 7% of U.S. deserts. The land area needed to collect
solar energy to produce hydrogen equivalent to the world’s entire
oil production in 1987 would total 205,000 square miles or about
2% of the world’s desert area. ..TEXT: Photovoltaic panels need
not block out the sun and kill desert vegetation; long
rectangular panels on stilts, spaced appropriately to allow
sunlight to strike the desert beneath them as the sun moved
across the sky would allow vegetation, wildlife, and even
domestic animals to thrive beneath them.
To replace all U.S. oil used today, the water needed to produce
the hydrogen would add about 2% to U.S. per capita water usage.
The water would not be destroyed, of course, but it would be
moved from the place where the hydrogen was made to the place
where the hydrogen was burned.
The Princeton study considers each of the competing alternatives
and concludes that hydrogen is the best fuel and that solar cells
are the best way to make the hydrogen. The study considers
biomass (growing vegetation and burning it for fuel), nuclear
energy, natural gas (methane), and synthetic fuels from coal.
Each of these competing technologies has benefits and costs.
Biomass requires 10 times as much land as solar cells and a great
deal more water. Nuclear power–even if the nuclear waste problem
could be solved–suffers from one unsolvable: each year a single
reactor creates enough plutonium to manufacture 20 nuclear bombs,
and we have seen in recent days that even facilities being
actively inspected by the international atomic police can extract
plutonium from reactors right beneath the policemen’s nose.[4]
Coal-based fuels produce carbon dioxide that promises without
doubt to heat up the planet sooner or later, causing major
disruptions of atmosphere and related systems (such as rain and
food production). Natural gas suffers from the same unsolvable
problem. ..TEXT: The German automobile firm, Daimler-Benz has
produced a hydrogen-powered automobile already. The Billings
Energy Corp. of Provo, Utah has manufactured a hydrogen-powered
bus. Several countries (Italy, New Zealand and Canada) have
already demonstrated the feasibility of a gaseous-fuel
infrastructure for transportation (in other words, pipelines,
tanks, filling stations, and so forth).
People fear hydrogen, principally because of the Hindenburg
airship disaster at Lakehurst, NJ, in 1937, which killed 36
people. However, analysis of natural gas, gasoline and hydrogen
reveals that each fuel has particular hazards associated with its
manufacture, storage, transportation and use and that for each
fuel procedures and precautions can be developed for safe
handling.[5]
The final chapter of the Princeton study offers a scenario for
shifting from an oil-based economy to a solar-hydrogen economy.
Even a speedy transition would take several decades; the pace of
the transition will depend upon our willingness to make the
necessary investment in new facilities. Our willingness to invest
depends upon our concern for the wellbeing of the planet and the
services it provides to humankind.
–Peter Montague, Ph.D.
===============
[1] The higher estimate is from recent unpublished work by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency scientist Joel Schwartz reported
in the WASHINGTON POST May 13, 1991, pg. A13.
[2] These effects are the ones we should expect as the buildup of
so-called greenhouse gases continues, according to Stephen
Schneider of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (a
federal research laboratory); see chapter 1 in Schneider’s book
GLOBAL WARMING (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1989). ..TEXT:
[3] Joan M. Ogden and Robert H. Williams, SOLAR HYDROGEN: MOVING
BEYOND FOSSIL FUELS (Washington, DC: World Resources Institute,
1989). 123 pgs.; $12.50 plus $3 shipping from WRI Publications,
P.O. Box 4852 Hampden Station, Baltimore, MD 21211. Phone (800)
822-0504 or (301) 338-6963; Visa, Mastercard and purchase orders
accepted.
[4] “Atomic Regulators Seek Safeguards Against Bombs,” NEW YORK
TIMES Sept. 24, 1991, pg. A17.
Descriptor terms: fossil fuels; oil; coal; energy; hydrogen
fuel; solar energy; nuclear power; daimler-benz; automobiles;
transportation; billings energy corp; renewable energy sources;
global environmental problems; petroleum industry;