^{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.