^{COAL AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Chris Petrauskis and Craig Pierce}

^{Since the industrial revolution, coal has been fundamental to the creation of electricity in the United States.  In 2002, 51.8% of the electricity generated in the United States came from the use of coal as an energy source.  Nuclear, the next most substantial energy source, accounted for 19.8% of the total.  At 16.1%, the combustion of natural gas contributed the third greatest amount of electricity [1] .  Although coal is the primary supplier of electricity for the country as a whole, energy sources vary among the different states.  This variance occurs due to a number of geographical, geological, and economic factors, which will be addressed in more detail.  For example, Kentucky and Indiana depended upon coal for 96% and 94%, respectively, of their electricity production in 1999.  In contrast, California used coal for a mere 1% of its 1999 electricity production, depending much more upon natural gas (46%) and hydroelectric power (22%) as sources for electricity.  In Wisconsin, 69% of electricity production in 1999 depended upon coal [2] . 
      Due to industrial, technological, and economic expansion, the demand for electricity from coal within the United States has grown dramatically throughout the past few decades.  Since 1970, the amount of electricity from coal consumed within the United States surged 148% from 1,532 billion kilo-Watt-hours (kWh) to 3,792 billion kWh in 2002.  Furthermore, according to the EIA, the consumption of electricity from coal is expected to be 42% higher in 2020 than in 2000. [3]   While the overall consumption of coal will increase over the next few decades, the national reliance as a percentage of the whole is projected to decrease as renewable energy sources fill in the gaps.} 

^{Stages of the Fuel Cycle
The process of converting the dense energy of coal into the useful form of electricity can occur in a number of different ways.  Most of these processes, however, contain the same basic elements.  Following is a brief explanation of the basic steps shared by the most prevalent coal combustion plants:  First, coal must be extracted from the Earth.  Trapped for millions of years, large coal deposits exist in thirty-eight of the fifty United States, lying beneath 13% of the country’s area.  Depending on the location and composition of these deposits, coal can typically be classified into four different types.  Lignite is the most abundant form of coal in the world and is widespread across the Western United States.  Yet, due to its young ecological age, the low energy content of lignite limits this source of coal as a realistic source for combustion.  Subbituminous coal, an older coal also found across the West, has been the most widely used type across the United States [4] .  Nearly one-third of all the coal used in United States coal powers plants is extracted from the state of Wyoming.  Wyoming’s subbituminous coal contains approximately 18 million Btu/ton and produces only .58 lbs. of SO2/ton [5] .  Forming approximately 150 million years ago beneath fresh water reservoirs, subbituminous coal contains a relatively small percentage of both energy and sulfur.  A third form of coal, bituminous, is older and has a higher energy content than subbituminous coal.  This coal, found primarily in the Midwest and East, contains approximately 24 million Btu/ton.  Finally, anthracite, a highly sulfuric coal found mostly in Pennsylvania, contains approximately 23 million Btu/ton and gives off 1.58 lbs of SO2 upon combustion.  The higher energy and sulfur content is due to the formation of this natural resource beneath salt-water oceans over 300 million years ago.  
       For a coal plant seeking the most economical coal resource, three primary factors must be considered – energy content, geographic location, and purity.  As evident from its prevalent usage, subbituminous coal is considered the most cost-effective type of coal in the United States. Although anthracite holds the highest concentrated energy per Btu, power plants opt to pay shipment fees for a less concentrated subbituminous coal source due to ultimate savings on SO2 control [6] .
       The mining process physically removes coal from natural coal deposits.  Depending on the location of the deposits, coal can be mined by one of two major methods: surface mining and underground mining.  Surface, or strip, mining extracts coal from deposits located just beneath the Earth’s outer crust.  Surface mines typically spread over a large area, as miners use bulldozers and large augers to dig downward toward the coal deposits.  Underground mining focuses on coal deposits that are located hundreds of meters beneath the Earth’s surface.  In order to extract this fuel, miners must dig deep beneath the Earth’s surface using cutting, drilling, and blasting.  This method usually depends heavily upon deep shafts and complex mine development to extract the coal.  Following extraction, coal is typically transported via truck or train to facilities than crush, pulverize, and clean the rock [7] . Finally, the coal is shipped by truck, ship, railroad, barge, or pipeline to the individual power plants.  “Hundreds of coal trains and barges run day and night, delivering coal at a rate of 2.5 million metric tons per day to power plants and factories around the country.” [8]
       Upon reaching a coal plant, a number of steps are taken to transform the concentrated energy within the coal into electricity.  First, the clean and pulverized coal enters a boiler.  Within this boiler, the coal begins to combust at a very hot temperature.  This combustion creates heat, as well as several other gases.  This heat and gas can then be used to move turbines and generate electrical energy.  The heat produced from coal combustion typically boils water to create this steam which drives a steam turbine.  In some coal plants, this process is pressurized and the gases released during combustion power gas turbines as well.  Finally, the remaining steam is condensed back to water and either recycled back to the boiler or released to the environment [9] .}

^{Environmental Problems  
Despite its negative impact upon the environment, the coal combustion power plant is the most common method of generating electricity.  In order to explore the downsides of the coal plant, one must first understand the environmental effects caused by each of the four primary pollutants.  As explained previously, each type of coal contains a different sulfur content, depending on how the fossil fuel was formed.  In the combustion reaction, sulfur combines with excess oxygen fuel to form sulfur dioxide (SO2).  Without proper regulation, SO2 escapes into the atmosphere, where it can combine with water vapor in the air to form a mildly acidic substance, or acid rain.  Besides its ability to accelerate the corrosion of many materials, acid rain in high concentration can change the acidity of a body of water, disrupting a delicate aquatic habitat.  A second bi-product of the combustion process is the formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx).  NOx also forms through reactions with excess oxygen in the heat producing combustion reaction, and contributes to acid rain along with the formation of local smog.  The formation and release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is the growing problem for coal as a sustainable energy source, for CO2 in the atmosphere is a catalyst for the constant warming of the earth. [10]
       To fully understand the environmental effects of coal power, one must consider the full spectrum of its impact.  The Union of Concerned Scientists presented a study of the ecological impact of a 500-megawatt coal plant.  A plant this size would typically produce 3.5 billion kilo-watt hours per year, burn 1,430,000 tons of coal, use 2.2 billion gallons of water, and provide enough electricity to power a city of about 140,000 people.  For example, during one year of service, such a plant puts out 10,000 tons of SO2, 10,200 tons of NOx, 1.7 million tons of CO2, 500 tons of small particles, 220 tons of hydrocarbons, and 720 tons of CO.  Furthermore, the plant would output large quantities of sludge, ash, lead, and other metals.  Additional impacts include radioactive emissions, ecosystem alteration, ground water contamination, transportation problems, and human injury and death. [11}

^{Alternate Technologies  
In order to address growing environmental concerns regarding coal power plants, the United States Department of Energy initiated the Clean Coal Technology Demonstration Program (CCT) in 1985.  This program was designed to “create a partnership between government, several states, and private companies to test new methods developed by scientists to make coal burning much cleaner.”  Since its inauguration in 1985, the CCT has received over $2 million from the United States government, and over $4 million from states and private companies.  Today, the CCT has developed technology that can filter our nearly 99% of air particles and 95% of acid-rain pollutants during the coal combustion process [12] .  Currently, several Clean Coal Technologies are being implemented within coal power plants to reduce SO2, NOx, and other emissions.
       The first major step to improving the cleanliness of coal combustion involves a simple cleansing process.  Typically, before combustion, coal is crushed and pulverized into tiny chunks.  Then, this coal is fed into large water tanks.  The small coal particles float to the top of the tank, while other substances and impurities fall to the bottom.  This process is a simple and somewhat effective way of removing coal’s basic impurities.  In fact, facilities across the country, named ‘coal preparation plants,’ specialize in this very process.  Unfortunately, cleansing coal does not remove all of coal’s impurities.}   
       The process of removing sulfur from coal becomes a bit more difficult.  Although the cleansing process removes much of the coal in sulfur, the remaining traces still have a significant effect upon the environment.  In order to further purify coal, many plants use flue gas desulfurization units, also known as scrubbers, to absorb SO₂.  These scrubbers inject powdered limestone into the combustion chamber.  This limestone serves as a sponge to absorb SO₂ and form calcium sulfates (gypsum) that are wet and pasty, but not released into the air.  Coal plants can then remove these calcium sulfates from the combustion units without releasing any sulfur into the air.  Today, scrubbers are capable of typically eliminating 90% of sulfur emissions [13] .  The CCT is also testing for new and improved scrubber technologies as well [14] .
       Additional developments have also been implemented in order to reduce NO_x emissions.  Nitrogen, a natural occurring element, composes 80% of the atmospheric air.  When these nitrogen compounds (N₂) are heated to a very high level, the nitrogen breaks apart to form bonds with oxygen, creating the pollutant NOx.  How can this reaction be prevented?  The solution is called ‘staged production,’ a process that uses multiple combustion burners that use much more fuel that oxygen.  As a result, all of the present oxygen is used to fuel the combustion process.  This leaves far fewer remaining oxygen available to react with nitrogen and form NO_x gases.  Then, with the ‘staged production’ method, the remaining unburned fuel is moved to another chamber with a limited amount of oxygen.  The remaining unburned fuel from this combustion chamber then moves to another combustion chamber, and the process continues until all of the fuel is burnt.  Although the staged production process is extremely cost effective, it typically results in only a 50% maximum reduction in emissions.  Currently over one-half of United States coal plants implement this staged combustion technology.  Many plants also utilize NO_x scrubbers, similar to the SO_x scrubbers described above, to further improve emission levels.
         A more cutting edge technology, the fluidized bed boiler, builds upon the scrubber technology.  Unlike traditional combustion chambers, the fluidized bed boiler depends upon upward-blowing jets of air that suspends and appears to ‘fluidize’ the burning coal.  This fluidization process reduces emissions in two major ways.  First, the tumbling allows the powdered limestone to better mix with the limestone.  As a result, the limestone is able to absorb more potential pollutants.  Secondly, the presence of air jets greatly cools the combustion process.  In fluidized bed boilers, the temperature inside the chamber drops from an average of 3000 degrees Fahrenheit to an average of 1400 degrees Fahrenheit.  As a result, the air is typically not hot enough for NO_x to form.  Fluidized bed boilers have been shown to reduce up to 90-95% of SO₂ emissions and 90% of NO_x emissions.  Additionally, these chambers can be pressurized to utilize both steam and gas turbines [15] .  This pressurization can enhance the efficiency of coal plants by up to 45-50% [16] .
         Perhaps the most innovative CCT system in use today is the oxygen-based integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) technology.  This process is completely non-combustive and depends upon the actual gasification of coal.  First, crushed coal and limestone are added to the fluidized bed gasifier, where a portion of the sulfur mixes with limestone to form calcium sulfide.  No combustion takes place within this chamber, but the coal is heated to a high temperature and blasted with hot steam.  The heat and steam then gasify the coal into a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen.  This gas can then be used to spin gas and steam turbines.  The gases can first be burnt to generate electricity with the gas turbine.  Secondly, the heat and exhaust gases coming out of the gas turbine can also be used to spin a steam turbine.  By gasifying the coal, scientists can now remove 99.9% of sulfur and other particles from coal [17] . Tests also show that IGCC plants emit 37.13 less lb/mWh of SO₂, 8.55 less lb/mWh of NO_x, and .09 lb/mWh less of CO₂ than an original pulverized coal plant [18] .    Although coal plants are far from eco-friendly, new technology and innovation are greatly reducing the ecological impact of coal power.

Limitations and Advantages 
Referencing previously discussed aspects of this report, two facts jump out which severely limit the feasibility of coals power as the energy of the future.  At best estimates, efficiency capabilities for the coal plant are expected to reach only 60% in the foreseeable future.  Also, despite the impressive advancements in clean-coal technologies, few affordable methods of CO₂ sequestering or prevention have been discovered.  If global warming does progress as predicted, the demand for electricity produced without the release of greenhouse gasses is sure to rise. 
       On the other hand, under the current political and economic situation of the United States, coals stands as the nation’s most crucial natural resource to ensure that increasing energy demands are met.  To begin, there is an abundance of extractable coal within the borders of the United States, making it a secure source of energy over the next few decades.  The U.S. imports only 12.5 million tons per year, less than 1% of annual total coal consumption, which highlights the negligible reliance upon foreign countries for this fossil fuel.  The stocks of coal have been projected to last 265 more years at current rate of usage and 93 more years at an annual rate of growth of 2% [19] .  Growth over the next twenty years has been projected at 1.35% [20] .  Because of these advantages, coal is a very affordable source of energy also, costing only $1.22 per million Btu over the 2002 nine-month weighted average [21] . 
       Over the past 25 years, the federal government has played a significant role in shaping how coal is combusted to produce electricity, especially by addressing the environmental regulation of coal-production.  As part of the 1978 Clean Air Act Amendments, the emission standards were raised for all coal plants built after the date of issue.  Under the New Source Review (NSR) aspect of the amendments, plants built prior to 1978 did not have to meet tougher standards unless undergoing significant modifications or additions.  For the past 25 years, some plants have taken advantage of this loophole to avoid modernizing pollution control, by increasing quantity of coal combusted inefficiently rather than updating existing facilities and facing NSR.  Currently, 36% of older units emit SO₂ at levels above NSR standards, and 73% of these pre-1978 facilities continue to emit NO_x at levels above NSR standards [22] .  The other most substantial piece of legislation affecting coal plants is the Bush Administration Clear Skies Initiative, which some praise for clarifying the complicated EPA timeline for tightening emission standards and others criticize for delaying increased air pollution control by ten years [23] .   (See Appendix V.)  The National Coal Council recognizes the confusion of those in the industry who need a clear vision of future emission guidelines, especially those amidst a design and construction process for a new coal plant which typically takes 6 years. [24]

Additional Issues  
As Professor John Karcneck mentioned during his lecture, many cities within Europe operate coal combustion electric plants at impressive total thermodynamic efficiencies, through the utilization of post-turbine steam as a heat source for residential and industrial use.  Yet, this ‘cogeneration’ is convenient only on those situations where there is a constant and significant demand for heating, thus in colder climates or for industrial application.  As electricity production becomes further deregulated, there may be a greater potential within the United States for the implementation of smaller combined heat and power plants. [25]

NATURAL GAS AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Megan Cain and Andy Zychowicz

There are four traditional methods of generation electricity using natural gas as the fuel source.  The first, and most basic method is steam generation.  Steam generation uses natural gas combustion energy to heat a boiler.  The steam produced then turns a turbine, which powers the generator to produce electricity.  These types of systems are located in large power plants and are generally base load type plants that supply a steady stream of electricity but cannot be turned on and off quickly to accommodate peaks and valleys in the power grid.  Natural gas is used less often in these steam generation units than are coal and oil.  These types of units, which use the high heat capacity of water to optimize thermal output, typically achieve 33 to 35 percent of thermal efficiency, meaning that about a third of the heat generated is converted into electrical energy.  Thermal energy is not total energy stored in the natural gas, only that portion of the energy that is converted to heat.  The two thirds of heat generated that is not used to produce electricity is exchanged with the environment surrounding the plant and is lost as far as function al work is concerned.
       The second traditional method for generating electricity from natural gas is the centralized gas turbines.  Centralized gas turbines do not utilize steam but instead turn the turbine with the hot gasses directly produced from combustion of natural gas. Since there is no need to wait for water to be converted to steam, the turbines begin turning as soon as heat is produced from the combustion process.  This property lends gas turbines to primarily peak load production where short ignition-to-electricity times are vital.  The cost of this advantage over steam generation units is lowered thermal efficiency.  Natural gas is used widely in this peak load generation strategy due to its ability to be quickly and easily ignited.
       Another strategy for electricity production using natural gas is the combustion engine.  This type of unit works much the same way that any motor vehicle’s internal combustion engine works.  The fuel source (natural gas or gasoline vapors in cars) is combusted within a cylinder creating heat that expands the gas within the cylinder.  This expansion drives a piston, which then turns a shaft that will in our case drive a generator to produce electricity.  This method also yields a short ignition-to-electricity time that is best utilized in peak load production.  However, this advantage of quick production again leads to a loss in efficiency compared to a steam generation plant. 
       The final traditional method of generating electricity using natural gas is combined cycle units.  These systems use a combination of both steam and gas turbines that allow for use of previously wasted heat.  The gas turbines work in much the same manner as mentioned above but the waste heat from the system is used to produce steam to turn another turbine and hence recovering some thermal efficiency.  Combined cycle plants can be turned on quickly and achieve thermal efficiencies of up to 60 percent.  These designs are the obvious choice for most proposed power plants. [26]
       These natural gas fired power plants have come online and are the fastest growing source of electricity production in the United States.  Approximately one quarter of the energy consumed in the U.S. is derived from natural gas.   However only a small, but rapidly growing, portion of the national natural gas consumption is used in electricity production.  In Wisconsin less than one percent of the electricity generated is from natural gas sources. [27]   The total national reliance on natural gas for electricity consumption varies greatly.  For the fourth quarter of 2002 almost 17 percent of natural gas demand was satisfied by electricity generation.  These differences are due to fluctuations in both peak load demands and natural gas market prices. [28]

Stages of the Fuel Cycle
The fuel cycle for natural gas begins with exploration and drilling.  Most natural gas deposits currently being exploited are found in one of two places.  The first and most conventional method of tapping natural gas begins with the exploration for oil.  The formation of both natural gas and oil are very similar and natural gas differs only in the fact that it has undergone stresses of heat and pressure greater than that of oil and allowed the carbon containing material to be broken down to a single or couple carbon atoms.  This thermogenic natural gas is formed deeper than the oil deposits.  As the light gas rises through rock formations, it is trapped above the oil deposits by impervious rock formations.  This gas is under positive pressure and will rise to the surface without added energy once the capping rock structure has been tapped.
       The second, less conventional source of natural gas currently being exploited is coal bed methane.  Coal bed methane is natural gas that has seeped into cracks or veins in coal beds.  This form of natural gas is generally under pressure form the water table slightly above it and to allow the methane to rise to the surface, water must be pumped out of the area reducing the pressure on the gas.  The water pumped out from the ground is generally non-potable water contaminated with salts and a host of dissolved particulate matter and minerals.  This water is sometimes pumped back into the ground but wastewater pits are often times constructed to cut costs.  Seismic imaging is used to detect the location, size, and depth of both forms of gas deposits.  Once the natural gas is discovered, the next step is to build the infrastructure necessary to extract the fuel.  Most new formations are found in non-developed areas.  Therefore roads and electrical lines must be erected to not only support construction of the wells but also to support the maintenance of wells, powering of compressor stations, and regulation of production.
       Once the natural gas has been tapped and brought to the surface via wells it must be transported to a consumer.  This is accomplished via the interstate natural gas pipeline system.  The 272,000 miles of high strength steel pipe that comprise the nation’s interstate gas pipeline provide transportation form the wellhead to the power plant.  The gas is processed at plants along this pipeline to remove trace elements of sulfur, liquid butane and propane, water, carbon dioxide and other trace gasses that could reduce efficiencies at power plants or produce harmful chemicals when combusted.  Along this pipeline every 50-60 miles, compressor stations are needed to keep pressure in the system optimal and therefore keep the gas moving along the pipeline. [29]   The last stop before entering a utility is the gate station where gas pressure is reduced to levels usable by the utility, gas is metered to allow for measurement of total gas consumed by the utility, and a “rotten egg” odorant is added to allow for easy detection of gas leaks. [30]  
       Once the gas has entered the particular utility it is generally combusted with oxygen to produce wastes of heat and carbon dioxide.  Other wastes such as nitrogen oxides (100 lbs/mbtu), sulfur dioxides (0.6 lbs/mbtu), and other wastes are produced in very small quantities compared to other fossil fuels and some have been practically eliminated in previous handling (gate stations and processing plants).  The main waste product of natural gas combustion is carbon dioxide.  Natural gas produces 115,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per million Btu combusted. [31]   There are no solid wastes from natural gas electricity generation.  Natural gas is a very potent greenhouse gas, even more dangerous than carbon dioxide and leaks or main breaks may also be considered waste products.

Environmental Problems  
The environmental problems associated with natural gas all seem to stem from exploration and extraction of natural gas.  The first issue raised by the exploration for new gas deposits is the locations of natural gas reserves.  We have already tapped and nearly exhausted all natural gas deposits in developed areas.  This forces the exploration and exploitation of new reserves to pristine wildlife areas that have not been developed.  The impacts up on native wildlife can be devastating.  The exploration for and possible development of natural gas and other fossil fuel reserves in the Powder River Basin of the Shoshone National Forest in Wyoming and Montana, part of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, poses the greatest threat to one of it’s keystone predators the grizzly bear.  According to a 1991 study by Dave Mattson and Richard Knight of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team, the roads that will have to be built impose a five times greater mortality rate among the already endangered keystone species.  The study shows that the bears tend to avoid habitat within 2.4 miles of a road regardless of food, water, or other resources located within this habitat.  The outcome of the decision to develop this wilderness for it’s coal bed methane gas could set a precedent that could effect one of the nations last pristine western wildlife reserves. [32]  
       Another source of environmental concern is wrapped up in the problem of western land rights.  A large portion of the land west of the Mississippi River that is owned by the individual residents confers only the surface rights to that land and rights to the subsurface resources are owned by the government.  These land rights practices are remnants of the Homestead Act that attracted the first settlers from the east.  The government also owns access rights to those resources.  This disparity in land use has caused many problems for the residents of land holding natural gas reserves.  The main uses of western land containing gas reserves are ranching and agriculture.  When natural gas is discovered on the land used by private citizens, conflicts erupt.  One major problem is the use of water by natural gas utilities.  To allow the methane to collect and rise to the surface, massive amounts of water must be pumped from the ground.
       In New Mexico’s San Juan Basin, 5.8 billion gallons of water have been pumped out of the ground in natural gas production.  A majority of this water was pumped back deep into the ground recharging the aquifer.  While this abundance of water may seem like a boon for ranchers and agriculturalists starved of water in the arid west, this water is often not pure.  The water pumped out can have a very high salinity and kill crops or grazing land if used for irrigation.  For some utilities, the solution to these adverse environmental effects is the construction of wastewater pits.  However, this approach also causes concern with locals because of loss of aesthetics and the possibility of wastewater leaching into surface or ground waters.  Farmers and ranchers downstream that rely on the water for irrigation are upset by the increased salinity of the rivers.  This problem also greatly effects aquatic wildlife that depends on relatively low, constant salinity levels. 
       Pumping massive amounts of water has effects beyond surface conflicts.  Water table levels are lowered by this practice and can have drastic effects upon the local human population and the local/regional ecosystems in general.  People living on the relatively undeveloped land do not have the convenience of clean, local, pressurized municipal water that high-density living provides city dwellers.  Instead, they must rely on wells and the natural aquifers to not only purity their water, but also to pressurize it occasionally and allow it to naturally flow to the surface.  The lowering of the water table due to coal bed methane drilling not only dries up those natural springs but also disrupts the hydrological cycle that replenishes, transports, and purifies water for human use.  Lowering of the water table and its effects upon hydrological system elements also has effects upon the non-human constituents of the ecosystem both in the short term and long term effects upon regional aquifers and flora that may not be understood or realized for decades or longer. 
       The dual nature of land rights and land use in the west combined with the activities necessary and some unnecessary undertaken by utilities has also brought landowners and utilities head to head. [33]   Cattle ranchers have cited the callous energy companies with killing cattle with machinery, poising livestock with wastewater overflow, and excessive noise intrusion upon their normally quiet comfortable rural existences.  As one representative of the utilities indicated, the utilitarian nature of their industry has local impacts but great national benefits.  “There is little or no constituency for producing energy products that have national benefits but only local impacts," Ken Wonstolen of Colorado Oil and Gas Association stated, "but we’re going to have to drill more wells…or this economy is going to shut down." [34]

Limitations and Advantages
The main limitations as described above are the environmental and social impacts of exploration and production of natural gas.  However there are two other large disadvantages for natural gas as an energy source for electricity production.  These are the intimately linked ideas of supply and price.  The supply of thermogenic natural gas is obviously finite within a human lifetime or several generations.  We have been consuming natural gas since it was originally used to light streetlights and have only increased our consumption as it has been fitted as a fuel source for an increasing number of applications.  We are not only consuming more than we are producing but the vast stores of concentrated, “cheap” natural gas have mostly been tapped and are close to running dry.  Not only does this raise the long-term question of sustainability of reserves for the future but also the short-term problem of skyrocketing prices.  Natural gas has historically been seen as an attractive alternative to other energy sources due to its low price.  In the past year gas prices have risen 130 percent and show no signs of reversing course. [35]   These price hikes, resulting from a harsher winter, rise in other fossil fuel prices (especially oil), and instability in the international community, have caused natural gas subscribers to dig much deeper into the pocket book this year and caused utilities to shift away from their gas fired power plants. [36]
       There are however several advantages to using natural gas.  Paradoxically the main advantage to natural gas is it’s comparative environmental benefits.  The main component of natural gas, methane (CH₄), possesses more energy per carbon atom than any other fossil fuel or possible arrangement of hydrocarbons.  Not only does it release the smallest possible amount of carbon per unit but also the nature of gas allows it to be free of most solid sulfur containing compounds that cause coal to be so “dirty”.  This gives it the distinction as the cleanest burning fossil fuel. [37]  
       The domestic nature of natural gas reserves gives it a two-prong benefit.  The fact that the majority of the natural gas consumed in the U.S. is produced domestically frees us from international geopolitical tangles and trade volatility.  Transportation is another benefit of domestic production.  Natural gas is easy to transport across the interstate pipeline system and environmental disasters on the magnitude of oil barge spills are almost an impossibility.  Price was mentioned as a disadvantage but also can be an advantage in two ways.  The high prices currently being experienced allow a lower opportunity cost for utilities to explore non-conventional reserves which may be more environmentally benign and to invest in more efficient capture and use of natural gas.  Natural gas prices fluctuate with the market forces placed on them.  Natural gas has been used in systems where cogeneration with different fuel sources has allowed for greater flexibility to different market prices of the fuels. [38]  

Alternative Technologies
Methane is produced by a number of methods other than thermogenesis.  For example, methane is produced by several bacterial organisms that breakdown organic material such as biomass.  WE Energies in Wisconsin is currently using landfills and cow manure to produce methane for use in power plants. [39]   Recent discovery of catalysts have provided a positive energy yielding chemical formula that can produce methane, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, and butane from the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and hydrogen chloride.  This reaction could be placed in smokestack scrubbers to remove carbon dioxide and convert it into methane usable to generate electricity.  Another reaction that could possibly be used in scrubbers to remove carbon dioxide is biological reactions.  Methanococcus jannaschiik, a bacterium recently isolated from thermal vents, produces methane from carbon dioxide and available hydrogen and is viable in harsh conditions. [40]  
       Great deposits of natural gas also lie frozen in cages of ice.  Gas hydrates are methane molecules trapped within ice lattices and are found in relatively high densities off the continental shelves of North America. [41]   These formations could possibly contain 270,000,000 trillion ft³ of methane that could provide the world with enough energy at current growth rates for well over a century.  The drilling and extraction techniques however are in their infancy at best.  Knowledge of the effects upon the environment are also unknown, however this very well may be the answer to the supply problem. [42]  
       In addition to the traditional model of electricity production with a centralized utility power plant designs for distributed generation provide hope for a more efficient future in electricity generation.  Distributed generation refers to smaller power plants providing electricity for a block of homes or industrial/commercial complex.  These systems utilize small gas turbines, combined cycle units, fuel cells or combustion engines and employ combined heat and power (CHP) systems that are able to use the waste heat from electricity generation to heat homes, hot water, or industrial boilers improving thermal efficiency up to 80 percent.  This means that we use up less of our limited reserves and in the case of fuel cells, powered by methane, are able to capture the carbon dioxide and prevent its emission into the environment.    

NUCLEAR POWER AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Lindsay Leiterman and Karin Schindel

We first must look at how much the United States already uses nuclear power as an energy source and which states are the main generators.  The United States as a whole relies approximately 20% on nuclear power for their electrical power.  Most of the producers are located in the Midwest and Eastern United States.  The leading states include Vermont with 67% reliance,  South Carolina with 55%, and Illinois with 50%. [43]
       Uranium is the starting material for nuclear energy so it is important to see where it is mined.  The nuclear fuel cycle uses far less starting material than do the typical fossil fuel cycles.  For example a 1000MW coal plant requires approximately 3 million tons a year of coal a year where a 1000MW nuclear plant requires only 25 tons of Uranium dioxide each year for the same result.  It is still important to look at the world reserves.  Australia has 25.7% left in world reserve, Africa has 24% and North America has 21.9%. [44]

Stages of the Fuel Cycle  
The nuclear fuel cycle is a very important part of nuclear energy because it does not rely on combustion which makes this so different than other fossil fuel types of energy production. A 1000MW coal plant produces approximately 7 million tons of waste gases into the atmosphere each year in the form of carbon and sulfur dioxides as well as 150-200,000 million tons of solid wastes such as fly ash and sulfur.  Without the combustion, many of the harmful emissions are not a part of nuclear energy production.  With the reprocessing process the waste can be reduced to approximately 1 ton per year.  Instead of waste in the form of emissions, nuclear plants produce radioactive waste which will needs a disposal methods that can secure it because it can be harmful for thousands of years.  It is very important in this process that it designed to prevent significant water contamination to the public. [45]
       The first step is the mining and milling process.  The uranium is mined either by surface or underground mining techniques.  The major mines in the United States are located in New Mexico and Wyoming with Colorado and Utah closely following. [46]   The uranium is then sent to a mill where it is crushed and made into a slurry. Once it is in this liquid it is leached to sulfuric acid and precipitated out as Uranium Oxide.  Mill tailings, the residual wastes from the mining, are also made in this step.  These have proven harmful to the environment so during the mining process they are pumped into an impoundment. [47]   
       The Uranium Oxide is then converted into the gas Uranium Hexafloride.  This is only done at plants in Europe and the United States so they have to transport it between the milling and conversion step.  
       The uranium naturally consists of roughly .7% of the U-235 isotope and 99.3% of the U-238 isotope.   The enrichment process uses a centrifuge method to increase the U-235 concentration to 3.5%-5%.  The increased amounts of U-235 increases the energy created from the nuclear process because the U-235 is what drives the reaction.
       The enriched U-235 then goes to the fuel fabrication where it is converted in uranium dioxide pellets.  These pellets go into steel rods which are bundled together and inserted  into the core of the nuclear reactor.
       Within the reactor, the U-235 are struck by atomic particles which causes the U-235 to split and then release their own particles to strike other U-235, all causing a large chain reaction. Some of the U-238 turns in Plutonium which yields about one third of the plant’s output.  Only one third of the plant’s spent fuel needs to be replaced each year.
       The spent fuel is highly radioactive so it is stored in spent fuel storage ponds to reduce radioactivity and heat.  It must cool for long periods of time because after the nuclear reaction the fuel is very hot and radioactive. After the spent fuel cools, it can either be reprocessed or slated for permanent disposal.  “Spent fuel still contains approximately 96% of its original uranium, of which the fissionable U-235 content has been reduced to less than 1%. About 3% of spent fuel comprises waste products and the remaining 1% is plutonium.” [48]   The Uranium and Plutonium can be separated from the waste by chopping up the fuel rods and dissolving them in acid.  The recovered Uranium can be sent to the conversion plant so that they can be reprocessed.
       To immobilize the radioactivity, at a high temperature, high level waste can be heated to produce a dry powder which can be incorporated into borosilicate, a form of glass.  The glass is poured into stainless steel canisters which could be buried in stable rock such as granite, volcanic tuff, salt, or shale.
       At the end of the useful life of a nuclear reactor, the plant must then be decommissioned.  The plant is shut down and radioactive components are disposed of so that the public is not affected.  First all the spent fuel must be removed from the site and then there are four options of what can be done with the rest of the plant.  The first option is SAFSTOR or mothballing which involves some decontamination, the plant is closed, and the plant is perpetually guarded.  The ENTOMB or entombment option involves concrete or steel barriers around the most radioactive equipment to prevent the release of radioactivity again with guards for an indefinite time.  DECON or immediate dismantlement where decontamination is followed by destruction.  All materials are sent to a low level waste sight.  The forth option of delayed dismantlement is the same as the DECON method except with a several year break in between decontamination and destruction to reduce personnel exposure. [49]

Concerns and Limitations
Nuclear power is also a very efficient power.  Because it does not use combustion and so much energy is not lost as waste heat.  An average plant is said to have a 33% thermal efficiency.  The table below clearly shows that nuclear power produces substantial amounts of electrical power for the small amount of Uranium used compared with other sources. [50]  

(MJ = Megajoules)   *Natural Uranium  

Research into reprocessing should be continued because, if utilized correctly, it can minimize the amount of spent fuel waste.  The United States has had problems with the reprocessing process because of several incidents of the fuel causing everything it came into contact with becoming radioactive. This meant even higher amounts of waste disposal.  Several other countries such as France, Germany and Japan have succeeded in efficient use of reprocessing spent fuel.  The lack of spent fuel, although still radioactive with long-term waste disposal needed, from a nuclear plant that reprocesses should be compared with the amount of waste that the same size coal plant would produce.  Comparing a 1000MWe coal plant to a 1000MWe nuclear plant the nuclear plant if the participate in reprocessing end up with considerably less waste.  The nuclear plant needs only 25 UO₂ to for that plant and will produce 27 tons of spent fuel but 97% can be reprocessed leaving only about 700kg of spent fuel.  The coal plant needs about 3 million tons of coal per year and produces as much as 7 million tons of carbon dioxide, 200,000 tons of sulfur dioxide, and 200,000 tons of fly ash.  All of these are quite harmful to the environment.  Reprocessing can also be seen as an attempt as proliferation of nuclear weapons because the plutonium being recycled can be the fundamental material for nuclear weapons. [51]
       A main focus of issues surrounding nuclear power is that of safety.  This concern encompasses many aspects throughout the entire process of nuclear fission as a means for energy production.  Mining of the uranium can be done with very little risk and basically no negative environmental impacts.  However, once the fuel reaches the plants, disturbances are more likely to occur.  The high temperatures in which the process of fission takes place have the potential of allowing a radiation release by melting the metal enveloping the uranium fuel, known as a “meltdown.”  This release of radioactive particles would pollute the atmosphere, possibly groundwater, and all things relying on this air, water, and land.  A further issue that may evolve once an accident has already occurred is the boiling away, or evaporation, of the water used in the reactor for heat transfer.  This again would result in the release of radiation into the atmosphere. [52]  
       There is also the safety concern involved with the transportation of the spent nuclear fuel.  “The United States Department of Energy ships highly radioactive materials between former production sites, research reactors, power reactors, storage, and other facilities throughout the United States.” [53] The spent fuel in this comes from commercial nuclear power plants, foreign and domestic research reactors, and U.S. nuclear powered warships.  The nuclear fuel is shipped across the United States by railway or specified trucking routes.  Since 1964, 3000 shipments of spent fuel have been shipped over 1.7 million miles and no container has ever leaked.   The Nuclear Regulatory Committee and the Department of Transportation decide on the most direct route that avoids all major cities. The governor is required to be notified before the trip and usually the driver will drive the route ahead of time to assure that he is comfortable with the route.  The fuel container consists of many layers of shielding inside a thick steel cylinder and undergoes many tests to make sure it is invulnerable to impact flames, submersion, and puncture. [54]
       Health concerns are frequently related to nuclear power, specifically those of humans.  While many people believe processing nuclear fuel exposes humans to high and unsafe levels of radiation that enter the atmosphere, the opposite is true.  Radiation from the nuclear fuel cycle only contributes 0.1% of the total radiation in the environment to which humans are exposed consistently.  Instead, the majority of radiation, 82%, is derived from unavoidable and natural sources such as radon and surface rock.  Another 11% of total radiation experienced by people is internal, that is the radiation comes from their own body.  Numerous studies have further proven there to be no connection between the nuclear fuel cycle and radiation levels noted in humans by noting no connection between those living and working for long periods of time near a nuclear plant to leukemia or cancer levels. [55]
       There are also risks from the uranium mining process if the mill tailings are not properly dealt with.   The mill tailing contain waste and can contaminate ground water as well as are linked the increased release of radon gas which is harmful to humans.  These mining sites are now required to decommissioned by properly containing all of these mill tailings before the site is left permanently.  Because they contain some levels of radioactivity, mill tailings are placed in impoundments that account for geology, seismic activity, ground water levels, availability of naturally occurring clay and potential flooding. During the mining wildlife and unnecessary humans are kept off the land and after mining is complete they are covered with rock and soil ten feet deep to protect against radon emissions.  Water quality is also taken into account when burring the mill tailings. [56]
       Perhaps the best known example of a nuclear power accident is that which occurred at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine, April 26, 1986.  Large amounts of radioactive particles were ejected into the atmosphere after a reactor was destroyed when a loss of coolant led to an explosion from within.  The immediate concern was to prevent the fire from spreading to further reactors at the site.  Unfortunately this led to the deaths of many firefighters from the direct exposure to such intense levels of radiation.  While the on-site cleanup was thorough and included encasing the burned reactor in 300,000 tons of concrete, scrubbing buildings and roads of the radioactive dust, and removing contaminated soils, the negative impacts of this disaster will be faced by Europeans and Ukrainians for many decades.  The radiation spread unpredictably throughout the northern hemisphere, with some of the heaviest sections falling in France, Norway, Sweden, the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean and of course, near the actual site.  Large areas of farmland and forests were contaminated and will not be able to be used as resources for well over a century.  This loss of agriculture resulted in a local economic fall.  The inhabitants of many areas of Ukraine are still not able to safely consume local water, milk, meat, fish, fruits, or vegetables and over 170,000 people were forced to permanently relocate.  Furthermore, those exposed to the high radiation areas mentioned above, continue to experience increases in death rate, birth defects, leukemia, organ cancers, mental retardation, and immune abnormalities. [57]
       The ensuing investigation was able to ascertain the initial cause for this calamity to be a flaw in the reactor.  The reactor, known as the RBMK reactor, was not stable at low power, which led to the explosion, nor was the reactor enclosed in a containment building thus, the immediate release of radiation could not be prevented.  While the RBMK reactor is not used in North America or in Western Europe, 15 operating RBMK reactors can be found throughout Russia, the Ukraine, and other neighboring countries. [58]
       The second cause for the disaster was human error.  Significant errors in reaction to the initial incident were made by the plant operators due to their lack of understanding and preparation for such occurrences.  The employees within the plant were not knowledgeable on a scientific or a technical level as to the plant they were operating. [59]
       Another well-known nuclear plant incident occurred at the Three Mile Island Plant in Pennsylvania, 1979.  A failure in the cooling system combined with human error in response to this failure, led to a 50% melt down of the reactor core.  Unlike Chernobyl, a very minimal radioactive release occurred since the reactor was housed in a containment building, preventing nearly all radiation from escaping.  No significant environmental damages occurred, nor did any immediate casualties result. [60]  
       Another concern of utilizing nuclear power as a main energy source is economic based.  Nuclear energy had been predicted to be significantly cheaper than traditional fossil fuels by the year 2000.  Unfortunately, this prediction did not hold true in the United States.  However, in France, where almost 80% of their electricity is generated by nuclear power, this energy source is 27% cheaper than coal generated electricity.  There are several reasons for this significant difference in usage and cost.  The main reason is due to the large subsidies which the French government supplies for research, development, proper waste disposal, and even insurance coverage against plant related accidents.  Secondly, France develops their plants using a uniform design in order to save money. [61]  
       The United States has not built a nuclear plant since 1976 and the opening of any new plants in the near future is not being heavily considered for several reasons.  The plants take years to plan and build to ensure safety.  During the construction various permits must be obtained which is a slow and expensive process, often delaying construction even further.  Some states have deregulated their electricity market, allowing users to purchase energy from the least expensive source, these not being the aging nuclear plants.  Most often closing a plant is more cost effective than attempting to make necessary repairs.  However, the combination of these early closing plants and the plants whose licenses expire is projected to decrease the nation’s nuclear reliance from 20% to 7%, with the last plant predicted to close in 2035. [62]  
       Yet another focus of concern is the handling of wastes, as noted by the Union of Concerned Scientist, stating, “In addition to safety issues, nuclear plants continue to be problematic because of their spent fuel rods and other radioactive waste. By 1995, US nuclear plants had produced almost 32,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste. [63] Finding a way to keep this waste out of the environment for the thousands of years it remains radioactive has proven difficult. Problems such as groundwater contamination led to four of the six commercial facilities that store low-level radioactive waste being closed. [64] ”  Currently the nation’s low-level wastes are being stored in South Carolina and Nevada, however these sites are quickly reaching capacity levels which will then force states to dispose of low-level wastes on an individual basis.  Intermediate wastes resulting from nuclear weapons production are being stored in underground salt beds in Carlsbad, New Mexico.  This waste primarily consists of nuclear weapons. 
       In 1987, Yucca Mountain was identified by the United States Congress as a candidate site for permanent high-level waste storage from commercial nuclear power plants.  For further information on this selection please consult The United States General Accounting Office Report “Nuclear Waste: Uncertainties About the Yucca Mountain Repository Project” GAO-02-765T, May 23, 2002, which states “in February [2002], the Secretary of Energy endorsed the Yucca Mountain site, and the President recommended that Congress approve the site”.  The area lies 90 miles northwest of the tourist city of Las Vegas and would be expected to hold 70,000 tons of spent fuel waste.    Many concerns arise in selecting this mountain as a holding site.  Scientists agree that the spent fuel waste will not be able to be fully contained until it has decomposed and that eventual leakage will occur.  This leakage could be worsened or accelerated by any activity of the quake fault lines on which the mountain is located.  An earthquake would lead to a rise in the water table which would result in radioactive contamination of air and groundwater.  Further, since the majority of nuclear reliant states are located far east of Nevada, the average spent fuel wastes will have to travel 2,300 miles.  The nation’s spent fuel wastes will cross through 43 states in order to reach this final site which further increases the risk of accidents occurring in transportation. [65]

Alternate Technologies
An alternative to requiring a high-level radioactive permanent storage facility is reprocessing all the spent fuel and in the future using alternative methods such as fusion to generate electricity.  A type of reprocessing can occur by breeder nuclear fission which uses the U-238 in combination with Pu-239, a fissionable, human-made isotope, in order to avoid the enrichment process of obtaining the U-235.  If all the U-238 currently being stored in waste sites were to be used in this method, the product would supply the United States with electricity for over 100 years.  However, immense safety issues arise in using the breeder nuclear fission since it requires liquid sodium instead of water for cooling purposes.  Liquid sodium, being a very violent compound, can burn spontaneously in the presence of air at high temperatures and react explosively when in contact with water.  Also, governments, as well as, the public commonly dislike breeder fission because the plutonium isotope required is additionally the fuel for nuclear weapons.  The last breeder fission plant closed in France in 1997 due to economic reasons and no future use of this method is being examined. [66]
       Fusion is continuing to be researched as a more efficient way to gain nuclear power.  This process involves the combining of two light atomic nuclei under intense heat and pressure.  During this reaction, immense quantities of energy are produced in the form of heat which is then transformed into electricity.  The energy output during the fusion process is much greater than that which results from burning fossil fuels, so much so, that almost 9 million mL of gasoline are required to equal the energy potential of 1 mL of fusion fuel.  The fuel source for fusion is easily obtainable considering it is merely various isotopes of the hydrogen atom.  The typical isotopes used are Deuterium, found in water, and Tritium, formed by adding neutrons to atoms found in salt water and some types of surface rock, Lithium-6.  Progress is being made to overcome the challenges that inhibit frequent use of this process.  One such obstacle is that the heat under which atoms fuse is in the millions of degrees.  Another impediment is the confining of the fuel at such high temperatures as the ionized gas becomes plasma. [67]   Currently, experimental reactors using both magnetic fusion and inertial fusion are being assessed. [68]   These alternatives to a standard fuel container would prevent the nuclei from losing energy when they come in contact with the container walls.  Instead, for instance in the magnetic confinement, the plasma would circulate in a ring shaped chamber allowing the atoms to combine with each other. [69]   The use of magnetic or inertial fusion is predicted to be operating commercial power plants by 2050. [70]  

OIL AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Joe Pedersen and Joe Rowley

A small percentage of the petroleum that is used in this country is designated for the purpose of generating electricity, but it is still an important resource for energy production in many areas of the country.  This report will analyze the ethical implications of oil production and its use as a source of electric energy production, taking into account the consequences that occur at each stage.  
       Oil is used to generate electricity, through a process of combustion, heating water, and producing steam.  As the liquid water molecules are heated, they expand and produce increased pressure that is harnessed to rotate a turbine that in turn causes a generator to produce electricity.  This method is inefficient due both to the loss of heat, and the inability to capture the electrical energy being produced by the generator for future use.  Most energy plants that use this method of steam powered turbine generators actually employ coal because it is a much cheaper fuel.  Only 2.9% of the nation’s electric energy is derived from the combustion of oil. [71]

Stages of the Fuel Cycle
Extraction:  The extraction process consists of the stage of the fuel cycle in which the oil is located and removed from the reservoir.  Various methods of exploration are employed to determine where suitable pockets of oil can be found.  One modern method of exploration uses sound waves.  Once found, a well is established that allows the oil to be extracted.  When first established, oil wells often remain pressurized and oil naturally flows out of the ground.  This natural flow of oil is called primary production.  Often, much oil remains in the ground after primary production, but this leftover oil is much harder to remove. [72]
       Transportation:  Once extracted, the oil must be channeled through different means of transportation to refineries where it is converted from “crude” to multiple usable products.  On land, oil is transported by pipe, rail, and road, and by sea, oil tankers are used.
       Refinement:  By heating the crude oil, refineries separate the oil into many different usable products, based on their different boiling points.  After the crude oil has been heated it is separated in a fractionation tower, which may be 30.5 meters (100 feet) tall.  The lower the boiling point of the component of the crude oil, the higher the component rises within the tower.  These components (petrochemicals) can be used for a wide variety of applications, from heating the kitchen stove to producing asphalt for the roads on which we drive. [73]
       Consumption:  At the electricity generating plant, oil is combusted to convert liquid water into steam, creating pressure and turning the turbines that produce electricity.  When combusted, the oil produces exhaust (CO₂, SO_x, NO_x, carbon monoxide) and solid waste (CO₂ and sludge) which have divers negative effects on the environment.

Environmental Problems
According to the Natural Resource Defense Council, oil companies disregard the stringent policies developed to minimize the ecological impact of extracting the oil from the ground because government agencies fail to enforce environmental protection laws. [74]   Each year, accidents and illnesses occur that are connected with production of materials needed for plant, oil field development, and transportation. [75] Transportation is especially hazardous, as illustrated by the table below.

Comparisons based on calculated rates per ton-mile. (Source: Allegro Energy Group)  

Throughout each stage in the use of oil, exhaust is produced as some of the oil is burned to power each process.  Exhaust is an inevitable byproduct that has been found to significantly increase the risk of cancer in oil refinery workers.  Air pollutants (SO_x, NO_x, carbon monoxide) resulting from the other phases of the oil cycle, including oil field development and transportation, [76] have detrimental effects on the associated workers.

The consequences to the environment from the oil production cycle can be just as significant.  Loss of forests, crops, and animals occurs due to absorption of oil combustion-derived air pollutants (particulate matter), released during power plant operation, [77] while marine habitat can be affected negatively by the transportation of petroleum using oil tankers and the associated spillage that results.  At a global level, increased concentrations of greenhouse gases (CO₂, SO_x, NO_x) dispersed throughout the atmosphere by each phase of oil use threaten the integrity of the world climate by causing global warming.  Global warming potentially encompasses wide-ranging consequences including fluctuating temperatures, extreme droughts, floods, and storms, shift of climate zones and loss of habitat, raised sea levels from melting polar ice caps, and increased respiratory and heat related illness.  

Limitations and Advantages  
There are certain advantages to using oil as a source of energy for electricity production.  Oil burns cleaner than coal, emitting less toxic and greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per unit of energy production.  As a liquid, oil is easier to transport than coal, making it easier to maintain a steady supply to regions distant from where extraction takes place.
       Significant limitations do exist in the use of oil to produce electricity.  Oil is a limited and finite resource that has already surpassed its peak of production in this country according to yearly production charts from the EIA.  The U.S. is forced, due to insufficient domestic production, to rely on other countries for this vital resource (such as Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, etc.), including some that do not necessarily share the American values of freedom and democracy. [78]   As domestic and international sources of oil are depleted, fuel prices will rise making oil a less economically desirable fuel for electricity production.  Currently oil is four times more expensive to use than coal for electricity generation. [79]   Since coal will continue in the near future to be much more abundant, this cost gap will continue to increase.  Ecologically, oil is a dirtier fuel than natural gas, producing both more greenhouse gases and solid waste.

Alternate Technologies  
Three techniques of extraction show potential for greater efficiency for extracting a greater percentage of oil in reservoirs.  The first extraction technique, CHOPS (Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand), revolves around the concept of using sand to enhance extraction in sedimentary basins.  The second of which, PPFE (Pressure Pulse Flow Enhancement), uses pressure pulsing to enhance the liquid flow rate through porous media.  The last technique of increased efficiency extraction, GAD (Gravity-Assisted Drainage), encompasses several related methods that increase the pressure in oil reservoirs to enhance the recovery of oil in both old and new fields. [80]   Pursuing these technologies should maximize the recovery and efficiency of the oil reservoirs that currently exist, thus decreasing the waste products as well as the need for oil deposit exploration.

RENEWABLE SOURCES

BIOMASS AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Craig Pierce and Karin Schindel

The United States relies on renewable sources to generate approximately six percent of their total energy consumption.  Of this total renewable energy use, biomass provides forty-five to fifty percent of consumption.  Thus, biomass energy production is responsible for approximately three percent of the total energy consumption in the United States. [81]   Energy from biomass can be utilized directly without converting it to electrical power by the commercial and the industrial sectors, mostly through thermal energy.  For both of these sectors biomass is by far the most used renewable source of energy consumed.  In the industrial sector, biomass contributes 90.8% of the energy provided by renewable sources. Also in the commercial sector, biomass represents 96.3% of the energy provided by renewable sources.  For electricity, biomass contributes 28.3% of the energy of provided by renewables. [82]   The electrical energy produced by biomass in the United States is made up of 64% waste sources, 31% wood sources, and 5% other biomass sources. [83]

Stages of the Fuel Cycle
The process of converting biomass into electricity begins with the gathering of biomass.  Currently, no single definition of biomass exists at the federal level, and many states lack detailed biomass definitions [84] .  The sources of biomass fall into several major categories.  In its purest form, biomass refers to the “Earth's vegetation and many products and coproducts that come from it.”  The energy content of biomass ranges between 7,000 Btu/lb. for straws and 8,500 Btu/lb. for wood. [85]   One major source of biomass comes from agricultural residues.  The agricultural industry produces a huge amount of organic matter, but only a portion of this matter is actually consumed.  Organic material such as corn stalks, wheat straw, rice husks, and sugar cane fiber are all examples of organic material that is grown but not consumed. [86]   Each year, “more than 86 million tons of agricultural waste [is] generated in the United States.” [87]   Forestry residues also provide a source of biomass.  Similar to agricultural residues, forestry residues are the organic matter remnants of forestry and include “underutilized wood and logging residues, imperfect commercial trees, and noncommercial trees that need to be thinned from crowded, unhealthy, fire-proned forests.”  In the United States, 90 to 254 million metric tons of forestry residues could potentially be collected each year. [88] Energy crops offer another efficient form of biomass.  Energy crops are plants such as hybrid poplars, willows, and switchgrass that have quick growth rates and high energy contents.  In the United States, approximately 190 million acres could be utilized for producing energy crops. [89]   In 2000, approximately 216 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) and 12 tons of industrial waste were produced in the United States.  This waste, historically considered a worthless burden, does have organic qualities and can be used as an energy source.  In fact, using MSW and industrial waste as an energy source relieves a lot of the burden currently placed upon landfills. [90]   Finally, forest crops can be grown to produce biomass.  Forest crops depend mostly on the cyclical planting and removing of trees.  Some species of trees “will grow back after being cut off close to the ground, a feature called coppicing.  Coppicing allows trees to be harvested every three to eight years for 20 or 30 years before replanting. [91]   These trees, which are basically big energy crops, can then be used for the production of energy.  Essentially, biomass energy depends on the production or recycling of organic material.
       Once gathered, biomass can be converted into electricity in several different manners.  Before any conversion takes place, however, the biomass must be physically transported to the location where the electricity production will take place.  This transportation causes quite a problem for biomass.  Biomass has a very low density and contains much less energy per pound than fossil fuels.  As a result, the Union of Concerned Scientists cautions that “biomass can’t be cost-effectively shipped more than 50 miles before it is converted into a fuel or energy.” [92]   In order to be effective, the conversion of biomass into electricity must take place near large and stable supplies of biomass.  This reality usually results in smaller biomass energy systems.  Several methods currently exist for the conversion of biomass into electricity.  Most electricity from biomass comes via combustion.  “The simplest, cheapest and most common method of obtaining energy from biomass is direct combustion.” [93]   Biomass can be burned in a conventional steam cycle plant in a manner almost identical to coal.  These plants (and their varying technologies, i.e. pile burners, cyclonic burners, and fluidized beds) basically burn biomass to produce steam that can power a steam turbine.  This technology directly parallels coal combustion technology as described in the coal report.  Frequently, however, biomass and coal will cofire, or burn together in the same combustion chamber. As the National Renewable Energy Laboratories 

“Cofiring is a near term, low-cost option for efficiently and cleanly converting biomass to electricity by adding biomass as a partial substitute fuel in high-efficiency coal boilers. It has been demonstrated, tested, and proved in all boiler types commonly used by electric utilities.” [94]

According to studies, as much as 15% of the total energy input can come from biomass, with only minor modifications to the feed intake system and burners.  This 15% input can create 33-37% biomass combustion efficiency to electricity. [95]   Although combustion may not be the most cutting edge technology, it remains the most common method for biomass electricity production.  
       Beyond combustion, several other processes can extract electricity from biomass.  Perhaps the most notable of these methods is gasification.  Gasification places biomass under controlled conditions, characterized by low oxygen and high temperatures, to convert biomass into a gaseous fuel (producer gas) containing carbon monoxide, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrogen. This producer fuel can either stay in the gas form or be liquefied.  The gasification process is both convenient and clean.  Extracted methanol can either be burnt to spin turbines, or run through fuel cells to produce a very clean form of electricity.  The gasified biomass also has many naturally occurring impurities removed, which results in far fewer emissions. [96]   Biochemical processes can also break down biomass into methane and carbon dioxide.  Many landfills take advantage of this process and capture methane released from anaerobic digestion.  This methane can either be burnt or stored for energy use.  Animal manure and agricultural products with a high-moisture content are best suited for these biochemical processes. [97]

Environmental Problems
There are several environmental problems associated with biomass electricity production.  A lot of the problems arise when biomass electricity is produced by combustion either alone or along with coal though co-firing.  It is very important to consider these environmental problems because this is the method that is often utilized.  When either of these methods are utilized, the same issues arise when using coal or any other combustion process if gases and particulates escaping.   The exact emissions will vary depending on the exact technology that is utilized in this process.  There can be SO₂ emissions depending on the materials used.  This is especially important with co-firing because the cleaner coal will have less SO₂ emissions.  The NO_x emissions are also vary depending on the age and the exact technology employed by the plant.  Particulates can also be released into the air with the combustion method but this can be controlled with scrubbers and other technologies. [98]   Since there is combustion, there will be some pollution involved compared to other biomass electricity production methods such as anaerobic decomposition or gasification or other renewable processes such as wind or solar. [99]   There are also unknown risks when combusting biomass because it is not always known what exactly is being combusted.  For example, the crops may have had pesticides, and dangerous unknown materials may easily slip into sewage and municipal solid waste. 
       There are also many environmental risks to the areas from which the biomass is taken.  If too much fertilizer is taken from agricultural lands, it could decrease the fertility of the soil.  After combustion, ash can never be returned to the soil to give nutrients back to the land like decaying trees or crops could.  There is the possibility or extracting too much municipal solid waste and sewage so that it does not go the landfill to increase the rate of the decomposition process. [100]   Also, there is the possibility of taking too many trees so that deforestation may occur similar to what is happening in South America, and sub-saharan Africa.  There are many very dangerous environmental potential consequences of deforestation such as “ecological instability, loss of agricultural production, desertification, climate change, and loss of biodiversity.” [101]

Limitations and Advantages  
There are many advantages for using biomass as a source for electricity and energy production.  One of the strongest is that is encourages recycling in many forms.    By using biomass for energy production, we would be able to use many forms of human wastes as fuel sources in an efficient manner.  Municipal solid waste and sewage now could produce energy instead of costing taxpayers for disposal. Utilizing industrial waste would reduce landfill use.  Emissions and pollution could be reduced for coal if it was co-fired with biomass.  Biomass alone would also produce fewer emissions than a coal plant with little cost.  The agricultural industry would receive increased economic benefits if they were able to now sell their agricultural wastes and their animal wastes.  The occurrence of forest fires would be reduced if the forest residues were removed.  Since coal plants can be so easily converted to biomass, there is very little capital investment for electricity production. [102]  
       There are also a few limitations to biomass other than the environmental problems in the previous section.  It can be very costly to transport biomass because biomass has very low bulk density compared to fossil fuels so it can be very costly to transport biomass.  Plants need to be very close to biomass supplies. There is also the potential for disputes over land and resources. Currently, this renewable source is not as economically competitive as the non-renewable sources, but, will become less expensive like the other renewable sources once it becomes more used. With a high demand for biomass materials, similar materials may be harder to acquire for other uses. [103]  

Alternate Technologies  
       Today, the future of biomass is difficult to predict.  Clearly, the demand and desire for renewable energy sources will continue to increase with improving technologies and increasing environmental concerns.  Unfortunately, biomass makes up only a small fragment of the electricity supply in the United States.  Also, most biomass makes use of current coal combustion technologies.  Therefore, technological and efficiency improvements for biomass are mostly contingent upon parallel improvements for coal.  Taking this into consideration, it does appear that biomass may be cofired with coal more often in the future.  Cofiring is easy, affordable, efficient, and environmentally friendly. 
       Today, the major drawback to biomass is the dependency on very local biomass supplies.  In the future, however, biomass sources will most likely change from biomass wastes and residues to energy crops and forest crops.  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, there may be as many as 100 million acres available for growing energy crops in the 21st century. [104]   This change in source availability could open possibilities for additional cofiring, dedicated biomass plants, and gasification technologies.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Joe Pedersen

Geothermal energy comes from the earth’s inner warmth.  Geothermal energy cannot only be used to generate electricity but also as a source of warmth in the winter and a source of cool air in the summer.  Geothermal energy provides more than 2800 megawatts of power to U.S. residents and 8,000 around the world [105] . 
       Geothermal energy is generated into the electricity we use in our households by the same process that many of the renewables and nonrenewables use today which is through the turbines powered by high pressure steam.  There are currently three types of power plants being used to convert hydrothermal fluid to electricity.  The type of conversion used depends on the state of the fluid (whether steam or water) and its temperature [106] .  In dry steam power plants, the steam (and no water) shoots up the wells and is passed through a rock catcher (not shown) and then directly into the turbine. Dry steam fields are rare.  Flash steam power plants use hot water reservoirs. As hot water is released from the pressure of the deep reservoir in a flash tank, some if it flashes to steam.  In a binary cycle power plant (binary means two), the heat from geothermal water is used to vaporize a "working fluid" in separate adjacent pipes. The vapor, like steam, powers the turbine generator. [107]

Stages of the Fuel Cycle
Many areas have accessible geothermal resources, especially countries along the circum-Pacific "Ring of Fire," spreading centers, continental rift zones and other hot spots. [108]   Other methods of geothermal exploration include among others, satellite imagery, geochemical, geophysical, volcanological studies, and temperature gradient hole drilling.  All of these methods provide multiple ways of finding thermal reservoirs large and accessible enough for electricity production.  Once the reservoirs are determined, large drills make their way down to the reservoir while the pressure already present in the reservoir pushes the heated liquid or steam up through the passage.  After the reservoir has been tapped, one of three methods of production will be used (flash, dry steam, binary) to convert the heated water or steam into useful electricity.  The electricity is produced at the site and is then channeled to the nearest power grid. 
       There are very few waste products from the geothermal production phase, but some do exist.  Salts and dissolved minerals sometimes contained in geothermal fluids are usually reinjected with excess water back into the reservoir at a depth well below groundwater aquifers. This recycles the geothermal water and replenishes the reservoir.  Some geothermal plants produce some solid materials, or sludges, that require disposal in approved sites, some of these solids are now being extracted for sale (zinc and sulfur, for example). [109]

Environmental Problems
Geothermal energy is one of the cleanest and most reliable sources of energy that the world uses today.  Geothermal energy does not require fuel burning to create heat or electricity and, therefore, emits little to no air pollution.  For example, geothermal power plants easily meet the most stringent clean air standards because they emit little carbon dioxide in comparison to fossil fuels which burn close to 1000 times as much. Nor are nitrogen oxides and only very low amounts of sulfur dioxide emitted into the atmosphere. Steam and flash plants emit mostly water vapor.  Binary power plants run on a closed-loop system, so no gases are emitted. [110]  
       The average geothermal power plant requires very little land compared to coal and nuclear plants. Coal and nuclear plants not only use large amounts of land for the plants themselves, but also need huge acreages to supply their fuel. An entire geothermal field uses only 1-8 acres per megawatt (MW) versus 5-10 acres/MW for nuclear and 19 acres/MW for coal. [111]  
       A typical geothermal plant requires several wells for production. Although drilling these wells has an impact on the land, using advanced directional or slant drilling minimizes that impact. Several wells can be drilled from one pad, so less land is needed for access roads and fluid piping. [112]

Alternate Technologies
The flash, drysteam, and binary technologies discussed above use only a tiny fraction of the total geothermal resource.  Several miles everywhere beneath Earth's surface is hot, dry rock that is being heated by the molten magma directly below it. Technology is being developed to drill into this rock, inject cold water down one well, circulate it through the hot, fractured rock, and draw off the heated water from another well. [113] One day, we might also be able to recover heat directly from the magma. If this technology does come about, it would be able to generate enough power for generations to come.
       Almost everywhere, the upper 10 feet of Earth's surface maintains a nearly constant temperature between 50 and 60 degrees F (10 and 16 degrees C).  A geothermal heat pump system consists of pipes buried in the shallow ground near the building, a heat exchanger, and ductwork into the building.  In winter, heat from the relatively warmer ground goes through the heat exchanger into the house.  In summer, hot air from the house is pulled through the heat exchanger into the relatively cooler ground.  Heat removed during the summer can be used as no-cost energy to heat water. [114]   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has rated geothermal heat pumps among the most efficient heating and cooling technologies available today. [115]
       Producing electricity is a relatively new use of geothermal energy.  People have used Earth's natural hot water directly since the dawn of humankind. [116]   Direct-use geothermal generally uses low- and intermediate- temperature resources for space heating buildings, homes, and greenhouses.  Other important direct-use technologies are applied to industrial processes requiring low-grade heat such as drying, curing, and food processing. Geothermal aquaculture is a direct-use that uses both the heat and fluid media of hydrothermal resources to grow aquatic species for food such as fish and algae. [117]
       Generally, direct-use geothermal operations use heat exchangers to extract the heat from geothermal fluids produced by geothermal wells.  The geothermal-extracted fluids are then placed back into the earth with injection wells.  Fresh water heated in the heat exchanger is circulated in pipes and heating equipment for space heating and industrial processes. [118]

HYDROGEN, FUEL CELLS AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION  
Andy Zychowicz

There are two practical methods of generating electricity from a stock of pure hydrogen gas.  The first method, combustion uses the hydrogen gas as a fuel source for a traditional combustion driven gas turbine or steam generation.  This method is almost identical to traditional centralized electricity generation using natural gas.  In the gas turbine the hydrogen gas would be ignited and the hot gasses produced would turn a turbine then sequentially a generator that would produce electricity.  This method allows for minimum time between system ignition and subsequent electricity generation, however a large amount of energy is lost in the process leading to below optimum efficiency.  In the steam generator system the heat of combustion is used to convert water into steam that will drive the turbine and indirectly the electricity producing generator.  This method absorbs more of the total heat energy, thusly increasing efficiency but has a significant delay between ignition and electricity production.  This method would best be used as a base load generation. [119]  
       The second and most practical use of hydrogen to produce electricity is use in a fuel cell.  A fuel cell consists of an electrolyte sandwiched between two porous electrodes containing a catalyst (usually platinum).  Hydrogen or a hydrogen rich fuel source such as methane is fed into the fuel cell where it comes into contact with the catalyst on the anode (negatively charged electrode).  The catalyst induces an oxidation reaction at the anode where negatively charged electrons are split from the hydrogen atoms.  The positively charged hydrogen atoms then pass through the anode and across the electrolyte while the negatively charged electrons must bypass the anode and travel through an electrical circuit creating an electrical current.  The circuit is completed with a reduction reaction catalyzed at the cathode (positively charged electrode) where oxygen from the atmosphere is combined with the electrons and hydrogen ions to produce heat and water.  The overall reaction uses only hydrogen fuel and oxygen and produces (in most types of fuel cells) only pure water, electricity and heat. [120]   The heat produced from the reaction can also be harnessed in co-generation for space heating, hot water, or to generate steam for further electricity generation. 
       There are roughly six different types of fuel cells including polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM), phosphoric acid (PAFC), direct methanol (DMFC), alkaline (AFC), molten carbonate (MCFC), and solid oxide (SOFC).  Each different cell type utilizes a different strategy in designing the electrolyte that will carry ions.  Each type of fuel cell operates at different temperatures and at higher operating temperatures may utilize catalysts other than platinum.  Each fuel cell type has inherent properties (size, operating temperature, weight, power density, fuel source, catalyst type, sensitivity, reliability, ect.) that can be utilized for specific applications.  DMFC’s can utilize unreformed methanol as a fuel source.    Each fuel cell can only produce a small amount of energy dependent upon cell type, fuel type, temperature of operation, and surface area.  Therefore, commonly several cells are usually stacked and wired in series to provide greater output.  Several of the fuel cells, for example PAFC’s, are small enough to provide electricity to meet the demands of a business or residence reducing demand upon the grid and if connected to the grid be able to produce electricity for grid use.
       National reliance on hydrogen and fuel cell generated electricity is negligible and not widely in place due in part to the relatively infant technology.  Fuel cell technology has been implemented in several anecdotal distributed generation applications including U.S. Postal facilities, Military bases, industrial sites, high schools, military facilities [121] , small commercial sites, residences, universities, and even a McDonald’s restaurant! [122]  

Stages of the Fuel Cycle
Hydrogen is being produced in at least five different basic processes.  These processes include electrolysis, reformation of hydrocarbons including fossil fuels, biogenesis, chemogenesis, and thermogenesis.  The first and possibly most viable method of hydrogen production is via electrolysis.  Electrolysis is the splitting of water into its component hydrogen and oxygen molecules using an electrical current.  The basic process involves two electrodes creating an electrical current in a water solution causing hydrogen to bubble out at the cathode and oxygen to bubble out at the anode.  This process can be made more efficient using heat from steam or buffer solutions to help drive the reaction reducing electricity needed.  Electricity is needed in this production method and would seem counterproductive in eventual electricity production from the hydrogen produced.  However when sources of electricity are present but demand is low the electricity generated cannot be stored except in expensive batteries.  The energy in electricity produced and not consumed can best be stored in hydrogen via electrolysis.
       The second method of hydrogen production is reformation.  Steam can be reacted with hydrocarbons and oxygen with a metal catalyst (generally nickel) to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide.  However in a non-combustion processes such as steam reformation the carbon dioxide produced can be captured and used by industry or otherwise sequestered instead of being emitted to the atmosphere.  Possible hydrocarbon stock sources include petroleum, methane (natural gas), ethanol, municipal and industrial solid waste, sewage, and gasified coal.  This method currently accounts for most of the commercial/industrial hydrogen produced worldwide.
       The third method of hydrogen production is biogenesis.  Biogenesis uses biological agents such as bacteria and algae to produce hydrogen.  Hydrogen production using algae must be done under aerobic sunlit conditions due to the reliance on photosynthesis.  However many bacteria break down hydrocarbon bearing compounds under anaerobic conditions and produce hydrogen or hydrogen rich compounds such as methane.  The stock fuel for these anaerobic decomposition bacteria include the waste materials listed above for reformation.  Processes have been developed to isolate and exploit these bacteria easily and at very low costs potentially at commercial or even individual level. [123]
       The forth method of hydrogen production is chemogenesis.  Chemogenesis refers to one of many chemical reactions generally used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen.  Some of these reactions involve caustic or otherwise dangerous chemicals or high reaction temperatures and costly reaction conditions.
       The fifth method of hydrogen production is thermogenesis.  Thermogenesis refers to any process in which high temperatures are used to create hydrogen.  To achieve this effect high temperatures can be harnessed to split water.  Solar dishes can be used to reflect and concentrate solar heat energy to produce temperatures around one thousand degrees Celsius.  High temperatures can also be combined with the chemical or electrical reactions described above to obtain increased efficiencies. [124]
       Hydrogen is generally transported by privately owned pipelines or pumped into large tanks and carried by rail or truck.  It has been proposed that natural gas pipelines can be slightly retrofitted to transport hydrogen.  After hydrogen is produced depending upon the stock source some impurities may have to be removed.  Carbon monoxide and inorganic compounds present in some hydrocarbon based hydrogen sources bind tightly to electrode catalysts and strip them of catalytic activity.  Hydrogen fuel cell generated electricity production itself produces only water as a waste product.

Environmental Problems  
Chemical generation of hydrogen and higher operating temperature fuel cell types can involve caustic chemicals and extreme reaction conditions that may pose a threat if released into an ecosystem.  However, hydrogen production and electricity generation using fuel cells is generally environmentally benign and can replace and reverse processes that release greenhouse gasses.  Effects of an environmentally benign and renewable source of energy upon population or habitat intrusion are unknown and will be dictated by human behavior and legislation. 

Limitations and Advantages  
The greatest advantages of hydrogen production and fuel cell technology are a secure stable nationalized cheap energy source, ability to produce and consume electricity and heat at localized sites and share excess generated fuel or power, increased efficiency, and decreased environmental impact over traditional power sources.  However, there are at present several disadvantages to hydrogen fueled electricity production.  The most significant of these disadvantages is the initial fixed cost of research and development.  Fuel cell technology is in its infancy and is very expensive to purchase.  Precious metals such as platinum are used as catalysts and add to the cost of fuel cells.  Research is being conducted into biochemical pathways that could allow for use of less expensive metals such as lead to be used as catalysts. [125]  
       Hydrogen is also the lightest element and has a very low density.  Therefore, hydrogen must be compressed to be stored in amounts viable for large scale.  Compression requires very high pressures and the cost of storage of high pressure gasses are expensive.  However, these are all fixed costs; even without initial cost reductions it is possible for efficiency savings and variable cost savings to render these technologies economical even today. 
       In addition to fixed costs most fuel cell technologies are prototypes and do not receive the reduced costs of large-scale production.  Hydrogen production levels are very low and inefficient leading to high costs of hydrogen fuel.  The technologies and strategies that could produce large amounts of cheap hydrogen are underdeveloped.  Some political interest groups oppose apportioning funds for research and development or would like to continue fossil fuel combustion production of electricity.  Fuel cell technology and hydrogen production technologies are only a few years old, so the benefits and feasibility of implementing them are not widely understood.

Hydropower AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Laura Blazer and Anna Chapin

Hydroelectric energy is created by harnessing the kinetic energy from moving water to create an electrical current.  It is the largest renewable energy source in the United States, generating 80 percent of the nation’s renewable energy.  More than 2,000 hydroelectric projects nationwide supply 8 to 12 percent of the electricity in the United States, and make the nation second only to Canada in the production of hydroelectric energy. [126]   Use of hydroelectric power varies from state to state, with the majority of hydroelectric power being produced and consumed in the Pacific Northwest.      

Stages of the Fuel Cycle
There are two main types of hydroelectric power generation facilities:  conventional plants, which utilize the flow of water in one direction, and pumped-storage plants, which recycle the water and pump it back uphill.  Both operate under the same principle of converting potential energy stored in a body of water into kinetic energy to be used in electricity generation.
       The most common method of generating hydroelectric power is through the use of an impoundment, or dam.  A dam is erected over a flowing river or stream, halting the flow and creating a large reservoir behind the dam.  The force of gravity pushes the water through an intake chamber affixed with gates that control the flow rate.  The water travels underneath the dam in a tunnel, called the penstock, which leads to a turbine or series of turbines.  As the water flows through the tunnel, it spins the turbines, which are connected to a generator.  As the generator spins, a series of electromagnets turn inside a coil of copper wire, creating an alternating electrical current (AC).  This current is transmitted into the powerhouse, located above the dam, which converts the AC into a high-voltage direct current (DC).  This DC is transmitted via power lines to different substations along the power grid, eventually making its way into homes and businesses.  After flowing through the penstock and spinning the turbines, the water moves through the outflow and returns to the river downstream.  This conventional method is ideal for providing low-cost base load electricity.  However, since the reservoir can only be recharged through the natural processes of the hydrologic cycle, the total output of the plant is dependent on annual precipitation. [127]  
       A second type of hydroelectric facility, the pumped-storage plant, operates in the same way as described above, however this plant possesses a lower as well as an upper reservoir.  In a pumped-storage plant, the water exiting the penstock flows into a lower reservoir rather than re-entering the river and flowing downstream.  During off-peak demand periods, a reversible turbine pumps water back into the upper reservoir, where it is stored for later use.  During peak demand periods, electricity is generated by releasing this pumped water from the upper reservoir and allowing it to flow downhill through the intake, where it spins the turbines.  During the off-peak pumping cycle, the reversible turbines consume more electricity than the amount that is generated when the water is released during peak periods.  Though this sounds like a waste of energy, it is believed that pumped-storage plants are economical because they consume low-cost off-peak electricity, but generate high-value peak electricity.  For this reason, pumped-storage plants allow for a great deal of flexibility in providing power during peak demand periods on very short notice. [128]  
       Both of the aforementioned hydroelectric generation processes are emission-free, with the exception of minimal greenhouse gas emissions from the reservoir, which will be discussed under the environmental problems section of this report.  The hydrologic cycle, powered by the sun, replenishes and recharges streams and rivers, making hydropower a clean, renewable and essentially infinite energy source.

Environmental Problems  
While the production of hydropower is one of the cleanest energy producing processes, the method has many environmental impacts.  One of the largest environmental problems is the flooding that results from damming rivers.  Millions of people are displaced from their homes as a result of this flooding.  Also lost are millions of acres of land, including forests, farmland, landmarks, and sacred sites.  As the river ecosystem is changed to the lake ecosystem of a reservoir, plant and animal species are driven to endangerment or extinction. [129]   The trucks, roads, and extensive concrete pouring involved in the dam construction process can also cause environmental disruption.  The long-term effects of dam construction on the surrounding ecosystem may not be known for many years to come.  
       Because dams block the normal flow of a river, the migration of fish is impeded.  Fish such as salmon cannot travel to spawning sites, thus fish populations decrease. [130]   Wildlife that depends on these migrating fish as food sources, as well as the fishing industry, both suffer as a result of these declining fish populations.  The turbines that are often set up across the entirety of a river also affect fish.  If these turbines are left unguarded, fish pass through and are mangled or killed. [131]
       The quality of water is also degraded due to the construction of dams.  Dams block the flow of sediments, causing them to build up behind the dam instead of flowing downstream.  Consequently, reservoirs become full of sediment, and water downstream of the dam is nutrient deficient. [132]   Oxygen is depleted due to water stratification in reservoirs and the decay of organic matter.  Water in the reservoir becomes stratified, with the colder water at the bottom.  Colder water does not retain oxygen as well as warmer water, and therefore, reservoirs become oxygen depleted.  The decay of organic matter also contributes to oxygen depletion.  When land is not properly prepared for flooding when a dam is built, the plant life that exists in the area is submerged.  These plants die and decay, and the decaying process takes oxygen from the water. [133]   As a result of oxygen depletion of the reservoir and the downstream river, many aquatic organisms cannot breathe and will die. 
       Another problem is the decaying organic matter caused by rotting vegetation and soils that accumulate in the reservoirs.  As they decompose, these organic materials release greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrogen oxides, which can contribute to global warming.  However, these emissions are minimal, totaling approximately one-fiftieth of the emissions from a combined-cycle natural gas process, the cleanest fossil fuel process currently available. [134]
       Another major concern for those living near a dam is that of dam failure.  Although rare, the risk of dam failure is significant as the rush of water from a broken dam can cause many injuries and deaths, as well as millions of dollars in damages. [135]  
       Many of these environmental impacts can be adverted.  Small-scale plants are proven to be more effective at mitigation. [136]   Taking measures such as installing fish screens, fish ladders, and using lights and noise have been successful in reducing fish mortality.  Proper land preparation can reduce oxygen depletion and greenhouse gas emissions due to decaying organic matter.

Advantages
Hydropower is a clean, renewable and efficient energy source in the United States.  In addition to being emissions-free, hydropower has great potential for development in certain areas of the nation.  Only 2 percent of U.S. dams are used for electricity generation. [137]    In a recent report, the U.S. Department of Energy has identified more than 5,600 sites in the U.S. with a total undeveloped hydroelectric capacity of 30,000 megawatts.  Of these, 17,000 megawatts could be produced by developing currently non-generating dams; 4,300 megawatts could be produced by improving efficiencies and adding new capacities to existing hydroelectric facilities; and 8,500 megawatts could be produced by building new dams on undeveloped rivers. [138]   Put another way, 21,300 megawatts of additional electricity could be produced without the construction of a single new dam, and with minimal environmental impact.   
       In addition to supplying hydroelectric power, dams have other advantages as well.  The reservoirs created behind a dam can be used for recreation, flood control, irrigation for crops and agricultural land, drinking water and wildlife preserves.  These reservoirs also support healthy fisheries and recharge surrounding wetland areas.  
       Hydroelectric power is relatively inexpensive compared to other non-renewable fuel sources.  The average capital cost per kilowatt hour of capacity for the construction of a U.S. hydroelectric plant is only $1000 per kilowatt hour, compared to $5,100 per kilowatt hour for a nuclear plant and $1,400 per kilowatt hour for a fossil fuel-powered plant (in 1996 dollars).  Similarly, hydroelectric plants have comparably small operation and maintenance costs over time compared to nuclear and fossil fuel plants.  The combined operation and maintenance cost for a hydroelectric facility is 0.7 cents per kilowatt-hour.  This is miniscule compared to the combined cost of 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour for nuclear plants and 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour for gas turbine plants. [139]   This makes hydropower an inexpensive, as well as a renewable, efficient and clean energy source.

Limitations  
One of the major disadvantages of hydropower is the large amount of capital needed to develop and license a hydroelectric facility.  In order to impound, modify or control any stream or body of water, a developer must incur the costs of an extensive regulatory process involving federal, state and local authorities such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, state government officials, as well as the general public.  Extensive research, biological assessments and data must be compiled on all relevant environmental, engineering and legal issues in order for the hydropower project to be licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act. [140]     
       Every 30 to 50 years, a hydroelectric facility must be re-licensed.  This costly, lengthy and inefficient process can take anywhere from eight to ten years to license one plant.  The National Hydropower Association claims that in the next 15 years, two-thirds of all U.S. hydroelectric plants will have to be re-licensed, at an estimated total cost of more than $3 billion.  Since the majority of these costs are the responsibilities of the licensee, it is projected that some will abandon projects instead of re-licensing them.  The National Hydropower Association also reports that two-thirds of all hydropower projects up for re-licensing since 1986 have lost an average of 8 percent of their generation capacities annually. [141]   These output losses are due to new constraints imposed on their operations during the re-licensing process.  These large up-front costs and huge risks in capital deter new investments in hydropower, as well as discourage current owners to re-license.
       Efforts have been made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to develop a more efficient and timely re-licensing process.  According to a 2001 report from the United States General Accounting Office (GAO), [142] the FERC petitioned Congress to grant it “sole federal authority” in the hydropower licensing and re-licensing process.  The GAO report stated that FERC’s recommendations “appear to be based on inadequate or inappropriate data and may change the outcomes of the [re-licensing] process.”  Further, FERC’s recommendations “could affect the emphasis given to protecting and enhancing fish, wildlife and other resources.” The GAO report concluded that FERC needs to work with other licensing process participants to develop a system to collect and share accurate data on process-related time and costs for each participant, project and process step.  The GAO held that FERC’s available data and “years of experience with the licensing process” are not adequate to reach informed decisions on licensing process reforms.  Rather, the FERC needs to better cooperate and share information with other federal, state, local and community participants in the licensing process in order to mutually agree on the best process reform.     

Alternate Technologies  
Of course, water moves in other ways aside from flowing in rivers and streams.  Consequently, additional methods exist for harnessing the kinetic energy created by moving water.  Two of these methods involve tidal and wave power.
       All coastal areas experience two high tides and two low tides in a period of just over 24 hours.  The movement of these tides is driven by the gravitational pull of the moon, which is essentially infinite.  In order to harness enough energy to create an electrical current, the tidal difference must be a minimum of 16 feet, and it is estimated that only 40 sites on the planet exhibit tidal ranges of this magnitude.  Even though the potential exists for tidal power, the lack of appropriate sites detracts from this energy source’s economic viability.
       There exist two known methods to harness energy from tidal currents – with the construction of a bay or estuary dam, or with submerged tidal turbines.  The former involves constructing an impoundment over a large inlet of a bay or estuary.  The generation method is the same of the conventional hydroelectric plant; gates open only when the difference in water levels is greatest on opposite sides of the dam.  Water is allowed to flow, spinning the turbines, which spin a generator to create an electrical current.  A tidal project was slated for construction along a coastal area of Maine in the 1930s, but the project was abandoned because it was thought not to be economically feasible at the time.  The only operational tidal dams exist today in France, Nova Scotia and Russia.  France is the only industrial-sized system, producing an output of 240 megawatts annually, supplying around 90 percent of Brittany’s electricity.  The plants in Nova Scotia and Russia produce only 20 megawatts and 0.4 megawatts, respectively. [143]
       The tidal turbine method involves submerging large turbines in shallow coastal areas, where the tides freely flow, spinning the turbines which are connected to a generator.  There currently exist no operational tidal turbine plants in the world, and there are no plans to construct any.  Despite the lack of investment, great potential exists for tidal power in the Pacific Northwest and Atlantic Northeast of the United States.
       Another alternative method of harnessing energy from water is through the use of wave power.  Waves are created by winds moving across the ocean’s surface.  Because these wind patterns are intermittent, wave power is an unpredictable and difficult-to-capture energy source.  There are two wave generation methods, still in their infant stages that are being developed and tested.  The first is an offshore system involving clusters of bobbing buoys, which extract energy from pressure fluctuations below the ocean’s surface.  The buoys are situated in water greater than 100 feet deep, and are connected by a series of hoses.  As the buoys rise and fall with the waves, these hoses stretch and relax, pressurizing and de-pressurizing water inside the hoses.  The pressurized water can then be used to rotate a turbine.  These offshore buoy systems are currently being tested by a select few manufacturers in the United States, such as the Ocean Wave Energy Company in Rhode Island. [144]
       The second method of generating electricity using wave power is an onshore system, or oscillating water column.  Large concrete or steel structures are submerged along a shoreline, with an opening to sea below the waterline.  This allows a pocket of air to be enclosed above the water column inside the structure.  As waves crash onto the shoreline, water is forced through the opening.  As the water column rises, the air in the column is pressurized and forced through a turbine, which is connected to a generator.  Only a handful of onshore wave systems are operating in the world today:  in India, on the island of Islay off the western coast of Scotland, and on the island of Pico in the Portuguese Azores island chain.  Each plant produces approximately 500 kilowatts of energy annually. [145]
       There are several disadvantages that prevent wave power from becoming an economically viable energy source.  There is a large visual impact associated with onshore systems being constructed along shorelines.  The onshore systems, as well as the offshore buoys, can potentially disturb marine life and result in collisions.  No concrete evidence exists to suggest that equipment will be capable of withstanding the salinity and harsh conditions of the ocean, and the sporadic wave patterns make it difficult to collect and transport electricity generated offshore.  Despite these challenges, the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy estimates that there is enough energy in waves to produce approximately 2 trillion watts of electricity every year. [146]    Such enormous potential may be actualized if construction, generation and transport methods for wave power are continually funded, researched and improved.

SOLAR POWER AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Anna Chapin and Chris Petrauskis

Even though the sun supplies the earth with an enormous amount of energy, solar power directly supplies less than one percent of the electricity produced in the United States. [147]   There are two principle ways to convert the energy from sunlight into usable electrical energy: photovoltaic conversion, and solar thermal conversion. 
       Photovoltaic (PV) conversion produces electric current directly from sunlight as a result of the photoelectric effect.  Energy in sunlight causes electric charges to flow, creating an electrical current in photovoltaic cells. Briefly looking at the trends that shaped the photovoltaic market in the year 2000, 40% of the market was off-grid non-domestic, 31% off-grid domestic, 21% on-grid domestic, and 9% on-grid centralized. [148]   In brief explanation, the off-grid non-domestic use of photovoltaic cells refers to the commercial use of stand-alone PV units unconnected to the main electricity grid.  Off-grid domestic usage refers to those homes that rely solely upon stand-alone PV units to supply all electricity needs.  On-grid domestic refers to those domestic PV systems also connected to the main electricity grid, which allows a homeowner to purchase electricity in times where demand exceeds solar production and to sell excess electricity in times of low demand.  Finally, on-grid centralized refers to the central production of electricity through the use of large fields of photovoltaic cells, which generate electricity for use on the main electricity grid. 
Solar thermal conversion uses the energy from sunlight to either directly heat a fluid such as water or to indirectly power generators to produce electricity.  Whereas this paper focuses more on the centralized solar conversion of sunlight into electricity, it should also be noted that stand-alone solar thermal systems are highly important to electricity conservation.  For example, 95% of the current solar thermal market in the United States is dominated by sales of solar thermal pool covers, which replace the need for electric pool heaters. [149]   Simple “green” building practices such as the installation of higher window areas or solar thermal water heaters greatly curve a structures reliance on electricity for heating.  Yet, the future of US reliance upon solar thermal conversion is found in Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems, which employ concentrating reflectors and steam powered turbines to generate large quantities of affordable electricity without major environmental impacts.  The three main varieties of CSP systems include parabolic trough systems, parabolic dish systems, and central receivers.  

Stages of the Fuel Cycle  
Photovoltaic conversion produces electricity directly from sunlight, using photovoltaic (solar) cells.  These cells are most commonly made of treated silicon.  Many cells are arranged into panels and are usually fixed onto buildings.  Sunlight is absorbed and produces a current in the cells.  The current then flows into use.  It first passes through a charge controller, then can flow on to DC loads, or to batteries for storage.  To be used for most appliances, the current must be converted to alternating current (AC) using an inverter, since the current is produced as direct current (DC). [150]   There are no waste products. Single-layer cell efficiencies range from 8 to 18%, but the typical single-layer silicon photovoltaic cell is 14% efficient. [151]  
       The parabolic trough system (solar thermal conversion) consists of a curved trough that moves to track the sun.  Reflectors in the trough focus sunlight into a line, which hits a fluid-filled pipe in the center of the trough.  The fluid in the pipe is heated, and creates steam, which is used to turn a turbine, generating electricity.  The parabolic trough system concentrates solar radiation to 100 times the intensity of normal sunlight. [152]   The system is 21% efficient. [153]  
       The parabolic dish system (solar thermal conversion) consists of receptors arrayed along a dish with a receiver mounted at the focal point.  Sunlight is focused to a point (at the receiver), and the collected heat is used directly by an attached heat engine to generate electricity.  The parabolic dish system concentrates solar radiation to 10,000 times the intensity of normal sunlight. [154]   This system is 29% efficient. [155]   It is the only solar thermal application suitable for stand-alone, small power systems. [156]  
       A central receiver system (solar thermal conversion) is made up of an array of sun-tracking mirrors that reflect light onto a single central tower that is filled with molten salts.  The salts absorb and hold the heat from the sun.  The heated salts are pumped into insulated storage tanks.  When power is needed, the salts are pumped into a heat exchanger, where water is heated to produce steam.  The steam then turns turbines, which generate electricity. [157]   This system is 23% efficient, and can be used to produce electricity after dark. [158]

Alternate Technologies  
The low efficiency of photovoltaic cells is a concern.  The development of multi-junction cells, which use multiple layers of differing conductive materials to absorb more energy from the sun, will increase the overall efficiencies of photovoltaic cells.  Each layer of material absorbs a different wavelength of sunlight, harnessing a greater percentage the sun’s energy, making the cell more efficient. [159]  
       Photoelectrochemical cells produce an electric current and split water into hydrogen and oxygen as well.  The hydrogen can then be burned as fuel. [160]   These, and other alternate technologies are still being researched. 

Environmental Problems  
The conversion of solar energy into electricity has a very minimal environmental impact, for solar systems avoid the combustion process that causes the majority of electricity-production pollution problems.  Yet, consideration of the full life of materials crucial to solar production reveals a few negative environmental consequences.  To begin, the production of equipment used in both photovoltaic and solar thermal conversion causes the indirect release of CO₂ into the atmosphere.  For a PV system, these emissions can be broken down to an average of 15 - 70g CO₂ per kWh of electricity produced, a significantly lower level of greenhouse gas emissions than those avoided through other means of production. A typical generator fueled by diesel releases approximately 700g of CO₂ per kWh of electricity [161] .   
       A second environmental impact relates to the usage and disposal of dangerous substances for solar conversion.  Toxic, flammable, and explosive gases such as silane, phosphine, and germane pose a significant risk to the health of both humans and natural biota and abiota having close contact to the solar technologies dependent upon these gases.  Also, the toxic metal cadmium used with some CIS-based technologies poses a difficult disposal problem. [162]   One other disposal problem is caused by the reliance of solar energy storage on large batteries that often require replacement every five to ten years.    
       The final significant environmental impact of solar conversion of sunlight into electricity results from the large quantities of space required to house photovoltaic cells, concentrated solar power systems, and other solar thermal equipment.   Whereas domestic solar units can be conveniently installed upon empty roof space, the mirrors or photovoltaic cells used in centralized solar plants leave giant "footprints" of low aesthetic value.  A Concentrating Solar Power system generating a comparable amount of energy as the Hoover Dam would occupy a 10-20 square miles parcel of land. [163]   The land area required for a centralized system is nearly comparable to that of a typical coal plant if the footprint of its corresponding mine is also taken into consideration [164] .  

Limitations and Advantages  
A prediction of high future dependence upon solar power is very reflective of the many advantages of this highly versatile energy source.  Designed for usage in space without moving parts, solar power systems are highly reliable.  With a dependence only on sunlight, solar power is also very affordable past the point of initial capital investment.  As previously mentioned, solar power is also one of the cleanest forms of energy, producing zero emissions while operating silently.  Due to great flexibility in size and placement ability, the options for usage of small-scale solar power systems are countless.  Also, in some situations it may be relatively cheaper to install a stand-alone solar power system than to extend power lines into new areas. [165]  
       Yet, a few crucial limitations must be overcome before solar power electricity usage becomes commonplace.  The primary limit to solar energy is the high initial capital cost for equipment, which is comparable to buying at one time the entire stock of coal to be used over years at a coal plant.  For example, the capital cost of a concentrated solar power system is typically 2.5 to 3.5 times the initial cost of a typical plant. [166] A second key limit is found in the thermodynamic efficiencies of solar electricity production that currently range between 15-30%.  These current efficiencies equate to costs that hinder solar power from being a competitive source of energy, but the cost of electricity produced by concentrated solar power systems is predicted to drop to a competitive 5 cents per kWh from current levels at 12 cents per kWh. [167]   Other current limitations worth noting include a regressive tax structure that unequally affects solar power plants and current hesitation from industry leaders to move towards solar electricity production techniques that have not yet been proven reliable over time. [168]    

WIND AND ELECTRICITY GENERATION
Megan Cain and Lindsay Leiterman

Wind power is the process by which the wind is used to generate mechanical power or electricity.  Wind power is one of the most promising and cost-effective technologies available for generating electricity today.  However, "it is generally not yet competitive with fossil fuels." [169]   Although, wind has recently made a comeback in the energy sector " generating about 3.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity each year - enough to meet the annual electricity needs of 1 million people." [170]   And "worldwide, there are more than 13,000 MW of wind power installed." [171]   The number of wind farms has also increased substantially over the past couple of years, causing the price for wind to fall.  "Currently, wind power costs between 3 and 6 cents per kWh to generate electricity, but by 2005, it is expected to be closer to 2 cents, making it one of the cheapest resources available." [172]    Today, “wind energy accounts for 6 percent of renewable electricity generation and 0.1 percent of total electricity supply,” [173] however, this number is expected to rise.

Stages of the Fuel Cycle  
In order for electricity to be produced from a wind generator the wind must blow.  Wind is caused by the uneven heating of the atmosphere by the sun, the irregularities of the earth's surface, and the rotation of the earth.  Once the wind begins to flow, the wind flow patterns and wind-density patterns are determined by the earth's terrain, bodies of water, and vegetative cover.  These three aspects that affect the wind flow and density patterns cause different wind-power density classes, ranging from class 1 (the lowest) to class 7 (the highest). "Good wind resources (class 3 and above) which have an average annual wind speed of at least 13 miles per hour are found along the east coast, the Appalachian Mountain chain, the Great Plains, the Pacific Northwest, and some other locations.  North Dakota, alone, has enough energy from class 4 and higher winds to supply 36% of the electricity to the lower 48 states." [174]   These wind-power density classes determine the location for the wind turbine, which is the first step towards electrical generation using wind.  Once a site with a high enough wind-power density has been chosen, construction of the wind turbine begins.  The wind turbine must be at least 100 feet above ground to take advantage of the faster and less turbulent winds.  When the wind blows, a pocket of low-pressure air forms on the downward side of the blade.  "The low-pressure air pocket then pulls the blade toward it, causing the rotor to turn.   This is called lift.  The force of the lift is actually much stronger than the wind's force against the front side of the blade, which is called drag.  The combination of lift and drag causes the rotor to spin like a propeller, and the turning shaft spins a generator to make electricity." [175]   This electricity is then transferred from the wind turbine to the electrical company through the grid.  Once this electricity reaches the electrical company the electricity generated by wind power can be distributed.   
       There are two main types of wind turbine applications, which include stand-alone applications and those wind turbines, which are connected to a utility power grid.  "The vast majority of the installed power of wind turbines in the world is grid connected, i.e. the turbines feed their electricity directly into the public electrical grid. " [176]   Those utility scale sources of wind energy are generally formed from a large number of turbines, and are almost always built close together to form a wind plant.  People that live in windy areas as a way to cut their electric bills generally use stand-alone wind turbines.  These stand-alone wind turbines are typically used for water pumping.  

Environmental Problems  
Although, wind power is a free, non-polluting renewable resource, it does still create some environmental problems.  These environmental problems include noise produced by the rotor blades, aviation mortality, and aesthetic (visual) impacts.  Two types of noises, broadband and tonal, usually cause the noise pollution associated with wind turbines.  The blades of the wind turbine produce broadband noises as they encounter air.  This causes a "swooshing noise."  The other type of noise produced by wind turbines is known as tonal.  Tonal noises are usually associated with the steady "hum" sound, and are usually caused by machinery.  However, this problem of tonal noise has been virtually eliminated in the newer wind turbines.   In an urban environment these noises would hardly be noticed; however, the majority of wind farms are placed in rural or low-density residential areas allowing the noise to become a factor.  In the early 1980s, wind turbines were extremely noisy, to the point that it was obnoxious to hear them from a mile away.  The wind industry quickly dealt with the problem.  According to the AWEA, “today an operating wind farm at a distance of 750 to 1, 000 feet is no nosier than a kitchen refrigerator or a moderately quiet room." [177]   The wind industry has recently made numerous improvements of both site location and wind turbine improvement in an effort to reduce the noise pollution caused by wind turbines.  Today, manufacturers are streamlining all parts of the wind turbine that is exposed.  This reduces any noise that is created by wind passing the turbine.  Sound proofing equipment has also been added to the generator, gears, and other moving parts of the wind turbine.  This soundproofing reduces any mechanical noise that is produced by the wind turbine.  Engineers are also working to make the blades more efficient.  This increased efficiency of the blades not only adds to more wind energy being converted into electrical energy, but also reduces the noise produced by the wind turbine blades. 
       Although, efforts are being made to reduce the noise pollution caused by wind turbines, the fact cannot be ignored that they are large pieces of industrial machinery that require maintenance.  Construction and maintenance of the wind turbines causes added noise pollution through truck traffic, heavy equipment and foundation blasting.  "In general, wind plants are not noisy, and wind is a good neighbor.  Complaints about noise from wind projects are rare, and can usually be satisfactorily resolved." [178]  
       Another environmental problem associated with wind turbines is aviation mortality, the death of birds.  Aviation mortality was first noticed in Altamont Pass in California one of the largest wind development areas in the United States.  When studies in the early 1990s documented these problems that were occurring with the death of birds little was known elsewhere on how wind farms were effecting birds.  However, studies have been conducted at numerous wind farms throughout the country and it was found that, "aviation mortality is low at most potential wind energy sites, approximately 1-2 birds per turbine per year or less." [179]   Other impacts, both positive and negative have also been associated with wind turbines.  Positive impacts include providing more jobs to those people in the areas surrounding the wind farms, which in turn means a source of long-term income.  This long-term income allows people to retain the existing habitat and keep encroaching urbanization at bay.  This provides birds, as well as other wildlife, with a pristine environment, and keeps the wildlife away from interactions with humans.  However, there are other negative consequences associated with wind farms, which include loss of habitat, electrocution, and collisions with wind turbines. [180]   Nevertheless, new approaches are being instituted to reduce the effect that wind turbines have on birds.  Some of these approaches include studying bird's hearing, vision, aviation patterns, and careful siting of wind turbines.   In comparison with other sources for generating electrical energy, wind energy has proven to be a lower threat to birds.  For instance, David Aitken, of the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that, "in a single oil shipping accident--the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound--more than 500,000 migratory birds perished, or about 1,000 times the estimated annual total in California's wind power plants." [181]   Another shocking comparison between wind turbines and other sources for generating electricity comes from a coal-fired power plant.  "A study at a single Florida coal-fired power plant with four smokestacks recorded an estimated 3,000 bird kills in a single night during a Fall migration." [182]   Mercury emissions, global climate change associated with the release of carbon dioxides, acid rain associated with sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, as well as habitat destruction associated with mining and extraction activities for coal, natural gas, and oil all have detrimental effects on the bird population.  Therefore, wind energy is a viable source of electricity production when comparing the deaths incurred by birds throughout the renewable and nonrenewable sector. 
       Wind turbines also effect the aesthetic or visual.  Wind farms are generally comprised of large numbers of wind turbines each mounted atop of tall towers.  For this reason, wind turbines can often be seen from a far distance.  However, the question is whether the visual impact is something that is desirable or undesirable, and this will vary from location to location.  For this reason, surveys need to be taken of the area before wind turbines are placed in a residential area.  After, these surveys are taken the wind turbines can be placed in the correct location.   

Advantages  
The greatest advantage to wind power is found in the fact that wind is a free renewable resource that is inexhaustible.  Furthermore, wind power is clean and non-polluting. [183]   Yet another advantage is that among the emerging renewable energy resources, such as solar thermal, geothermal, and biomass, wind power maintains the lowest production - associated costs. [184]    "A single 750-kilowatt wind turbine, operated for one year at a site with Class 4 wind speeds (winds averaging 12.5 - 13.4 mph at 10 meters height), can be expected to displace a total of 2,697,175 pounds of carbon dioxide, 14, 172 pounds of sulfur dioxide, and 8,688 pounds of nitrogen oxides, based on the U.S. average utility generation fuel mix." [185]   In 1990, California’s wind power plants alone offset the admission of more than 2.5 billion pounds of carbon dioxide and 1.5 million pounds of other pollutants that would have been otherwise released by fossil fuel energy production. Thus, each year wind plants in California save the equivalent amount of energy as 4.8 million barrels of oil. [186]  
       More advantages of wind power plants include the ease of fast assembly in order to meet emergency energy demands.  Thereby, these plants improve the energy security of the nation, as well as, reduce national reliance on imported fuels.  Wind energy provides income to ranchers and farmers who chose to place wind turbines on their open lands.187 

Limitations  
While the benefits of wind power seem numerous, several issues have prevented a rapid expansion of use for generating energy.  High initial start-up costs make funding difficult, however, once the wind project reaches a larger scale, the costs of the operation become competitive with fossil fuels.  Another problem wind power faces, is the intermittency of the wind source, as the wind cannot be controlled and varies with time and place.  Therefore, storage is needed so that the wind energy captured during peak wind fluctuations can be maintained until needed.  However, wind can only be stored in batteries.  Furthermore, the areas of greatest wind potential are not centrally located within the sights of high electric power demand, but are found in remote locations of vast open space. 

Efficiency  
The Department of Energy has developed a program entitled the Federal Wind Energy Program, whose aim is to promote a comprehensive wind energy research program, wind turbine research and development, and support for utilities, industry, and international wind energy projects.  Through these programs the efficiency of the wind turbine increases allowing more electrical energy to be produced using less resources.  This program, “helps engineers and scientists advance the technology needed to create new wind turbine designs, better understand how to integrate wind into utility systems, and improve U.S. technology to compete in global energy markets.” [187]   Some of the following tools that the DOE (Department of Energy) is developing to help industry build better wind turbines, and thus increase efficiency include computer models, advanced controls, adaptive blades, and advanced research turbines.  The computer models make it possible for designers to build a new turbine on the computer and refine it for commercialization without having to build and test the prototype turbines.  Advanced controls adjust turbine operation to maximize energy production and minimize wear and tear on the machine.  The adaptive blades, which change in shape in response to the wind, would potentially increase turbine performance as much as 35%.  Advanced research turbines are turbines that are developed for testing.  These research turbines allow for engineers to develop advanced components and test promising technologies that the wind industry is unlikely to pursue because of cost or technical complexity.  Once these tools that are designed are installed into wind turbines, the wind turbine will then perform at 98% reliability, and greatly increase efficiency. [188]  

Alternate Technologies  
The future of wind power is promising.  The U.S. Department of Energy’s Wind Energy Program continues to further wind power in efficiency, reliability, and cost-effective technology.  Over the past two decades the Program has worked to lower the cost of wind energy at prime wind sites from 80 cents/kWh to between 4 and 6 cents/kWh.  Researchers foresee a further reduction of 30% to 50% in the very near future with continued investigation of this power source. [189]   Taking into consideration the exclusion of lands not suitable for wind power usage due to environmental or land-use considerations, the remaining good wind areas are estimated to be a mere 6% of the contiguous United States surface area.  Of this small land area, wind has the potential to supply electricity at a level one and a half times the U.S. current consumption rate. [190]  
       The Department of Energy has established several goals for increasing wind power usage.  The first goal states that by the year 2005, the U.S. wind industry must be established as an international technology leader, capturing 25% of world markets.  Secondly, by 2010, the U.S. must achieve 10,000 MW of installed wind powered generating capacity.  The Department of Energy has furthered these aspirations by forming Wind Powering America within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  This initiative aims to significantly increase the use of wind as a U.S. energy source, while supplying income to farmers, Native Americans, and rural landowners and providing a source for clean electricity.  One specific goal of Wind Powering America is to power at least 5% of the nation’s electricity with wind by the year 2020.  Another is to increase the number of states with greater than 20 MW of wind power to 16 states by 2005 and, further, to 24 states by 2010. [191]

EFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF ELECTRICITY

ELECTRICITY USE IN THE COMMERCIAL SECTOR
Craig Pierce and Andy Zychowicz

The scope of this efficiency report focuses on the commercial sector.  This sector, as defined by the EIA, includes “all activities other than transportation whose principal activities are not residential or industrial.”  This excludes manufacturers, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, mining, and construction. [192]
       According to the Energy Information Administration, the commercial industry used 4.2 quadrillion Btu of electricity for its 2003 functions. [193]   Within the defined commercial sector, a number of efficiency improvements can be carried out.  The act of measuring these efficiencies, however, proves difficult.  The commercial sector includes a vast expanse of buildings, operations, and infrastructures.  These varying commercial activities demand varying electricity services.  As a result, the measurement of electrical efficiency becomes somewhat qualitative.  Although quantitative measurements can be taken, they are all relative to an already existing level of electricity usage.  The laws of thermodynamics prevent any perfect level of efficiency.  So, the best one can hope to achieve is the greatest improvement in electricity efficiency.  Just as the laws of thermodynamics always prevent pure efficiency transfers, they always leave room for efficiency improvements.
       In the commercial sector, a number of efficiency improvements are available.  For example, Orion Lighting, a Plymouth, Wisconsin company, provided efficient lighting for the industrial, commercial, and residential sectors.  In one of many examples, Orion Lighting replaced lighting systems throughout Wisconsin Dells School District, saving the district $23,412.91 in annual energy savings, $4682.58 in annual maintenance savings, and having a tremendously positive impact upon the environment. [194]   The market for energy efficient commercial products extends far beyond just lighting.  “Office equipment (including computers, printers, faxes, and copiers) accounts for 6% of commercial building energy use.” [195]   Nearly all of this equipment depends entirely upon electricity.  As a result, energy efficient computers, monitors, and office products are available on the market.   

ELECTRICITY USE IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR    
Megan Cain and Chris Petrauskis

Realizing that each member of society receives years of education throughout America’s public and private schools, the educational sector holds a key role in ensuring the sustainability of the planet.  From children in kindergarten through teenagers in high school up to young adults in college, students should be introduced to environmentally responsible decisions such as using electricity efficiently.  This report focuses primarily upon the opportunities for colleges and universities, which mix the nation’s most ambitious students with wise teachers and unlimited resources, for it is here that students can be best prepared to act responsibly within a world plagued by environmental problems.  Over 275 university professors within 40 countries have affirmed their university’s commitment to environmental sustainability by signing the Talloires Declaration, “a ten-point action plan for incorporating sustainability and environmental literacy in teaching, research, operations and outreach at colleges and universities.” [196]   The efficient use of electricity within university operations is only one key component of these environmentally encompassing goals, yet the Talloires Declaration sets an impressive example of how ‘the university’ can employ its fullest educational capabilities to teach respect for the earth through mission and example.  Realizing our country’s enormous dependence upon electrical energy, the economic and ecological benefits of electricity conservation must be made known through class and program to each student.  At the same time, it is crucial that universities further demonstrate the importance of electricity conservation through the implementation of the following energy-efficient “green” measures.
       According to the Energy Information Administration, America’s colleges and universities spend approximately 2 billion dollars on energy each year. [197]   However, these colleges and universities can adopt certain strategies and policies that will ultimately make their use of electricity more efficient, and thus, decrease the amount of electricity used as well as lower their electricity bills.  There are two very specific ways to accomplish the goal of increasing electrical efficiency which include the use of cogeneration or combined heat-and-power plants and the use/installation of more efficient appliances.  Several educational institutions, in a combined effort with organizations such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, have formed coalitions to help make schools across the nation more “green.”  These programs address areas of high consumption and then address the barriers to conservation.  In fact, ENERGY STAR, an energy savings program through the Environmental Protection Agency, estimates that by adopting a strategic approach to energy management energy bills could be lowered by 30% or more. [198]
       In order for a school to become more efficient in electricity production/consumption, the current situation needs to be analyzed.  Many schools, for instance, have central boiler plants and a district system of steam or hot water pipes, which makes schools a perfect candidate for cogeneration or combined heat-and-power plants.  In fact, schools such as the University of Pennsylvania, Tufts Medical Center, Harvard University, and others have installed and currently use these types of systems in order to create a more efficient process. [199]   “In the case of the University of Pennsylvania, a new 150-megawatt combined heat-and-power plant produces electricity and the normally wasted heat supplies the campus as well as downtown Philadelphia, operating at 73 percent efficiency versus the United States average electric generation efficiency of 33 percent.” [200]   This increase in efficiency generates enormous savings in both electric and heating bills and also decreases the amount of pollution emitted into the air.  If Marquette University or any other college or university located in Wisconsin were to install such a program as this, there would be 1.8 pounds less of carbon dioxide emitted into the air per kilowatt hour saved, 10.4 grams less of sulfur dioxide emitted into the air per kilowatt hour saved, and 3.5 grams less of nitric oxides emitted into the air per kilowatt hour saved. [201]   Consequently, per every kilowatt hour saved by using a more efficient process of electrical generation, a substantial amount of pollution will not be released into the atmosphere.  Therefore, the use of cogeneration systems is an extremely efficient option to providing heat and electricity.
       Universities and colleges can also increase their electrical efficiency through the use and installation of energy efficient appliances.  The majority of electrical loads in a university setting lie within the lighting and mechanical systems.  For example, plug loads such as task lighting, computers, and office equipment, total approximately 25% of commercial electrical consumption. [202]   For this reason, appliances that are not energy efficient need to be replaced with more energy efficient appliances.  Schools can make changes to lighting, to the type of computers used, and the type of office equipment used.  For instance, schools and universities which take part in the EPA's Green Lights program (24 percent of schools participate) are increasing the energy efficiency of their buildings, saving easily between 30-60 percent on their lighting bills. [203]   Brown University, through the program “Brown is Green,” replaced incandescent bulbs that were used in EXIT signs with low watt, long-life fluorescent bulbs.  However, the bulbs were not changed until four years after the recommendation due to the project cost (approximately 60,000 dollars).  If the recommendation, which was made by the students, had been directly enacted, the project would have saved the university an estimated 300,000 dollars in energy and maintenance costs. [204]   The University of Virginia also works very closely with the ENERGY STAR program, and in fact uses the ENERGY STAR program manual in one of its engineering classes.  The engineering class then develops energy efficiency projects that can be put into place at different locations throughout their campus.  It is estimated that these actions have helped reduce energy use by 23 million kWh, and has prevented the release of 40 million pounds of carbon dioxide. [205]   The many schools that participate in such programs realize significant cost-benefit, protect our environment, and set new standards for other colleges and universities to attain.  
        Our educational environment, Marquette University, has not been a leader in the “green” movement to increase energy efficiency, yet it is currently implementing a number of energy saving measures as a part of the Energy Optimization Project. [206]   Focusing upon both water and electricity conservation, the plan includes the relamping of most fluorescent lighting on campus with more efficient bulbs and the installation of control devices to more efficiently manage heating, air conditioning, and ventilation on campus.  The costs and predicted energy savings have not yet been released to the public.

ELECTRICITY USE IN THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR 
Chris Petrauskis and Joe Rowley 

The governmental sector holds perhaps the greatest potential for improving electricity efficiency within the nation, due to its unique power to affect through standards and programs the electricity consumption of each other sector from home to industry.  Yet, the fact remains that the federal government, operating out of 3.3 billion feet of facility space, is the single largest energy consumer in the nation. [207]    
       Following are a few examples of the effort that has been taken by the federal government to improve its electricity efficiency.  For one, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 emphasizes improvement in electricity management, conservation, efficiency, and planning strategy. [208]   Also, the principles of sustainable green design have been implemented in a number of federal facilities such as the White House, the Pentagon, and the Zion Canyon National Park Visitor Center.  Efforts taken at the White House since 1993 include modifications to the building envelope to reduce heat loss through windows and walls, and modifications to the lighting systems to increase overall efficiency while maximizing natural lighting. [209]    

ELECTRICITY USE IN THE RESIDENTIAL SECTOR  
Laura Blazer and Lindsay Leiterman

The residential sector in the United States is composed of 273.6 million people living in more than 105 million households. [210]   The number of households is on the rise, illustrating a 15 percent increase since the 1990 Census.  The energy demand for this large sector is enormous.  The U.S. Department of Energy reports that “residential energy consumption is projected to increase by 27 percent between 2001 and 2025…most (75 percent) of the growth in total energy use is related to increased use of electricity.” [211]
       The typical U.S. household spends $1300 per year on utility bills for their home or rented housing unit. [212]   Surprisingly, the amount of energy wasted through poorly insulated windows and doors is equal to the amount of energy we get from the Alaskan pipeline each year! [213]   This energy wastefulness equates to money loss, as well as increased air pollution as a result of higher energy demand.
       There exist a plethora of inexpensive, energy-efficient measures that ought to be undertaken by individual homeowners and renters, which will decrease their energy bills by anywhere from 10 to 50 percent, helping to conserve energy as well as decrease overall energy demand and air pollution. [214]   Our recommendations identify many of these measures.

ELECTRICITY USE IN THE UTILITY SECTOR
Anna Chapin and Joe Pedersen

For the purposes of this report, utilities will include any infrastructure conducive to producing and distributing electricity for a given sector of the economy.  Regulation of electric utilities varies from state to state, and deregulation has been heavily debated in government circles.  At current rates, utilities are producing electricity at the bare minimum of efficiency.  With this in mind, utility companies have the capability to adopt a higher level of efficiency. 
       In Wisconsin, utility investments in energy efficiency dropped by 64 percent between 1993 and 1997.  In the same period of time, utility energy efficiency achievement dropped 58 percent, from 621 gigawatt-hours in 1993 to 262 gigawatt-hours in 1997 [215] .  Nationwide, utilities cut spending on efficiency programs by 45 percent, or $750 million between 1993 and 1997.  The cut programs would have saved consumers $1 billion each year and would have increased the reliability of the nation’s power supply system [216] . 
       Because of the nature of the utility markets, there are no competitive market forces to force a given company to develop a more efficient plan for energy production.  This allows inefficient plants to continue electricity production even though in a free market they would be forced to run at a higher efficiency to stay competitive.  In the current market, it is not in a utility’s best interest to promote electrical efficiency.  In any market place, the primary objective of a company is to make a profit and in the case of the utilities, that profit comes from selling electricity.  Promotion of the efficient use of electricity would be contrary to the profit-making goals of the company.  With the help of government agencies, states should have the ability and be encouraged to promote a competitive energy market for the benefit of the consumer and the environment.  A change in infrastructure would be needed as well in order to set the stage for a competitive energy market.  State and federal governments ought to promote this change in infrastructure as well promote the energy alternatives.  This should be done through the use of subsidies for utility companies that adopt this changing structure, and further public education on the benefits of more efficient energy production and use. 
       On a national level, fuel efficiency standards should be uniform.  Enforcing a fuel efficiency code will set a standard for utility companies and provide an unbiased nationwide level of production efficiency.  The federal government ought to establish a national fossil fuel efficiency standard.  This standard would establish a standard energy usage per megawatt hour and also a plan for a progressive decline in fossil fuel energy usage over a set period of time [217] .  The standard would promote energy efficiency while decreasing the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels in the future. 
       One barrier to energy efficiency at utility plants is the byproducts created from energy production.  Heat specifically is a problem for larger plants.  These larger utility plants are unable to efficiently distribute the excess heat.  This results in a great loss of energy.   One way to use this excess heat is primarily found in Europe and consists of distributing waste heat to surrounding area to heat water for domestic use.  To provide this type of service, a utility service will need to be located in or near to a city or area of heat use.  A conscious effort by state and local governments to explore the benefits of such co-generation technologies ought to be made.  Smaller and more local utility plants ought to be used to provide this co-generated heat to the consumer. 
       Existing management techniques seek to solve the energy crisis by promoting conservation, but such programs try to fix the problems without eliminating the causes.  One such technique is demand side management.  This management technique includes installing efficiency devices to lower or manage peak electric load or demand [218] .  Demand side management fails to solve the problem of energy inefficiency because the problem of energy efficiency in utilities involves the consumption of fossil fuels, not the end product, electricity.  Instead of simply managing the problem, state and federal governments ought to work with the utilities to develop programs to attack the root cause of the problem.  Utilities ought to work with the public to educate consumers and to develop an understanding of electricity usage in order to better serve electricity needs.   Through education efforts the public can begin to make more informed decisions regarding energy production and usage.  

ELECTRICITY USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR  
Megan Cain and Karin Schindel

The industrial sector uses 29 percent of the total electricity produced, according to the Energy Information Administration (based on 2001) [219] , and their use of this 29 percent of electricity is extremely inefficient.  However, there are numerous opportunities to increase efficiency, and thus, decrease their use of electricity as well as decrease bill payments. 
       One opportunity to increase efficiency is through the use of cogeneration systems.  A cogeneration system recovers the waste heat from electric generation and allows it to be sold.  “In the early 1900s over 25 percent of the nation’s electricity was produced in cogeneration plants.  By 1978 only 4 percent came from such plants.” [220]   Despite the decline in cogeneration systems, it is a very efficient process delivering “electricity and heat with up to 91 percent efficiency--nearly three times the national average--and saving money.” [221]   An example of how a company has effectively used a cogeneration system to increase their efficiency is illustrated through an analysis of DOW chemical company.  “DOW cogenerates a phenomenal 95 percent of its electricity worldwide.” [222]   This is DOW’s most important way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save money.  Usually, 33 percent of the energy in fuel is converted to electricity on average throughout the United States, and the remaining 67 percent is discarded.  However, DOW recovers the normally wasted heat and uses it in various processes to manufacture chemicals. [223]   Paul Cicia, Global Issues Manager of the DOW Chemical Company, conceded that, “DOW pursued these energy reductions out of pure self-interest.” [224]   If DOW chemical company did not efficiently use their electricity, their production costs would continue to rise, thus, causing the company to lose market share.   
       The proper infrastructure needs to be in place in order for cogeneration systems and district energy systems to be utilized.  District energy systems move the normally wasted heat from industrial processes and power plants to homes and buildings.  In order for a district energy system or cogeneration system to be in place, the infrastructure needs to be present.  Typically, district energy systems consist of underground, preinsulated pipes that are buried beneath the street and connect to the basements of major buildings on one end and to the power plant on the other end. [225]   Europe, for example, has instituted district energy systems to move the waste heat form municipal power plants, electric plants, and oil refineries throughout the city.  “District energy accounts for 38 percent of the heating in Sweden.” [226]   Both, district energy systems and cogeneration systems prove to be very efficient systems, however, the infrastructure needs to be in place for these processes to be utilized.  
       One of the main functions of the industrial sector is the production of goods.  However, those industries, which do produce efficient products, do not have an “American Market,” in which to sell their products.  For example, a German group makes an extremely efficient front-loading washer, which “uses only 20 percent of the energy of a standard American top-loading washer.” [227]   This washer also uses less than half as much water per load of clothes, thus conserving (hot) water. [228]   However, this particular washer typically costs around 1200 to 1500 dollars.  But, there is no American market for this type of efficient appliance, and therefore, U.S. manufactures will not bother to produce a machine, which will not sell.  Nevertheless, if Americans did begin to use efficient appliances, these “efficient appliances could represent a guaranteed 20 percent return on extra investment,” [229] and lower bills in the long run.  
       In the industrial sector, a major portion of the electricity is consumed in the actual industrial processes and “In the U.S., compressed air systems account for $1.5 billion per year in energy costs.” [230]   Thus, it is very important to make these processes as efficient as possible.  The compressed air systems can be pressurizing, atomizing, agitating, and mixing applications. Compressed air systems are utilized for many industrial uses and with energy efficient improvements can reduce their energy requirements by 20 to 50 percent.  The first way to eliminate all inappropriate uses of compressed air.  Another way to maximize compressed air efficiency is to minimize the air leaks.  Air leaks can waste from 20 to 30 percent of a compressor’s output.  Industries can easily test for air leaks with an ultrasonic acoustic detector, which is relatively inexpensive.  Reducing air leaks and eliminating all inappropriate uses of compressed air will greatly increase its efficiency.    
       Another widely used process used by United States industry is steam production; 45% of all fuel burned by manufacturers is to produce steam.  This is also a process that needs to be more efficient because a typical industry can receive 20% in steam savings if they optimize their process.  “If steam system improvements were adopted industry-wide, the benefits would be $4.0 billion in fuel cost reductions and 32 million metric tons of emission reductions.” The steam systems that can most offer the most benefits energy savings for becoming more efficient are the steam generation process, the steam distribution system, and the steam recovery process is.  These all include fairly simple ways to greatly increase the steam process’s efficiency. [231]
       Combustion also plays an important role in American Industry. Boilers, furnaces, and other process heaters together account for about two-thirds of the total energy used by U.S. manufacturing industries.  Some techniques to optimize these processes are by checking the burner to air fuel ratios and to preheat the combustion gas before it reaches the burners.  These improvements are very important because of the large consumption role combustion plays in the industrial sector. [232]
       Motors are essential for many industrial processes. In fact, “Motor-driven equipment accounts for 64 percent of the electricity consumed in the U.S. industrial sector.” [233]   There are several ways in which motors may become more efficient.  It is very important to eliminate voltage unbalances by regularly monitoring at the motor terminals.  Motors can also become more efficient if they are pumping through optimum sized pipes.  Cogged and synchronous belts are more efficient than V-belts and should be replaced where feasible.  With the minor changes and monitoring, motors can become a more efficient component of the industrial process. [234]

---