Environmental Effects of steam

The environmental impact of steam power depends on what sort of steam turbine system is
being used to create the steam.

Today, the three main systems used to create electricity from steam power are: nuclear
power, coal power (fossil fuels), and concentrated solar power. Each steam power system
has a different impact on the environment.

Using concentrated solar power to create steam energy will have the mildest impact on the
environment because there will be no pollutants emitted from the system into the atmosphere
except for perhaps during the construction of the system.

Using nuclear power to generate electricity from a steam turbine generator does emit carbon
dioxide and other pollutants into the air and water. There is also the small probability of a
catastrophic disaster when dealing with nuclear energy. Aside from the risk of nuclear
meltdown, nuclear reactors are release less common pollutants into the atmosphere than coal
power plants.

Coal power plants and burning fossil fuels to generate steam power also has a more negative
impact on the environment that concentrated solar power. Coal and other fossil fuels release
quite a bit of carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the atmosphere. Most of the electricity
generated in the world comes from coal power or burning fossil fuels to turn a steam turbine
generator.

The aggregate environmental impact of steam power is far worse than other sources of energy
such as solar, wind, and hydro.
Environmental Impacts Solar

1. Energy - The manufacturing of solar panels requires more energy up front to produce
than other forms of energy generation. This is due to the manufacturing process required to
transform raw minerals into usable photovoltaics. Quartz must be processed, and cleaned and
then manufactured with other components which may come from different facilities
(aluminum, copper etc..) to produce a single solar module whereas coal is mined, cleaned and
burned on a mass scale typically in a single location. Heating the quartz during the
processing stage requires very high heat. Manufacturing requires combining multiple
materials with incredible precision to produce high efficiency panels. All of this requires lots
of up-front energy.

2. Chemicals – To produce solar-grade silicon, semi-conductors processing typically

involves hazardous chemicals. Depending on the solar panel manufacturer, these chemicals
may or may not be disposed properly. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC) presents
an annual report on the environmental records of major solar manufacturers. Like every
industry, there are companies leading by example, and others which cut corners to save
money. Not every company will dump chemicals, or recycle their byproducts improperly,
but there are a few bad apples out there fueling the anti-green bandwagon.

3. Recycling – Although solar panel recycling has not become a major issue yet, it will in
the coming decades as solar panels need to be replaced. Technology does however tend to
keep up with demand. The automobile recycling industry did not begin until the auto
industry was well underway. The same can be said for other recycling industries such as
bottle depots, biofuel, and electronics. Companies such as PV Cycle are already thinking
ahead to mitigate this problem.

These are the major environmental concerns surrounding the PV industry but overall, the
downsides are minimal compared to the downsides associated with common forms of
generating energy such as coal and natural gas.

Although solar panels do require a great amount of energy up front, they do have a very short
energy payback time (EPBT) as is explored in the section below.

Toxic chemicals are required during the manufacturing stage, but hazardous materials are
required for almost every type of energy generation. Coal must be cleaned with chemicals
and burned. Natural gas must be extracted and burned. Nuclear energy itself requires a
highly radioactive material. Wind turbines use metal which must be mined, and processed
too. No energy form is perfect, but some are better than others. To tell the difference we will
explore the carbon emission intensity of each of these fuel types below.
Environmental Impacts Nuclear

The radioactive waste coming from nuclear power plants is a great threat to Mother Nature
and humans. The devastating effects of Chernobyl disaster still linger in our minds, where the
grave effects on humans can be seen even today. According to records, about 30, 000 people
died in the Chernobyl disaster, and over 2.5 million Ukrainians are still dealing with the
health tribulations associated with the nuclear waste.

Only a few years back, a huge nuclear crisis occurred in Japan on March 8. Although the
casualty rate was significantly lower than the Chernobyl disaster, the environmental impacts
were disastrous. People who work at nuclear power plants and live near those areas are at
high risk of facing nuclear radiations, if it happens. According to these historical happenings,
it’s evident that we cannot insulate ourselves 100% from these disasters.
1. Radioactive waste

Radioactive waste is any material, whether solid, liquid or gas that consists of a radioactive
nuclear substance and the operators of the nuclear plant have determined that it’s a waste.
Radioactive material is considered waste after it has spent more than 3 years in the reactor
producing heat and electricity. This waste comes from nuclear reactors and needs to be
disposed of or stored safely and conveniently considering they are highly dangerous and can
let off radiations if disposed of incorrectly.

The reason it has to be disposed of safely and appropriately is that it is able to emit radiations
even after thousands of years. The storage or disposal of radioactive waste is the main reason
slowing down expansion of nuclear energy. Handling and safe storage can happen as long as
it’s cooled and workers insulated from the radiation it emits by thick material such as steel,
concrete or a few meters of water.
Water is able to offer remarkable cooling and shielding, which means a typical reactor can
have its fuel removed under water and safely transferred into a storage pool. After more than
5 years, the waste can be transferred into dry ventilated concrete containers. However, the
radioactive waste can stay safely in the pool for over 50 years.
2. Requires high initial capital costs

Another practical disadvantage of using nuclear energy is that it needs a lot of investment to
set up a nuclear power station. Constructing a nuclear power plantrequires massive capital
outlay. For example, between the year 2002 to 2008, the cost of constructing a new power
plant increased from between $2 billion to $4 billion per unit to a staggering $9 billion per
unit. The new constructions occurring in Europe today are estimated to surpass the $10
billion mark each, not to mention it takes 5-10 years to be fully operational, plus construction
requires completion of a multitude of legal formalities.
 3. Eutrophication leading to death of aquatic life

Eutrophication is extensive enrichment of the lake and other water bodies by nutrients,
mostly due to runoff from land. This process causes dense growth of plant life eventually
leading to death of aquatic life as a result of lack of oxygen. Radioactive waste can cause this
problem. Many seminars take place across the world to find a solid solution to this potential
problem, but a solution is not yet in sight. According to scientists, radioactive wastes take
about 10, 000 years to neutralize.
4. Impact on humans

The impacts of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombs during the Second World War are
still rife in our memories. Today, the effects of these bombs are still occurring. Children in
Japan are being born with defects. This makes a nuclear power plant more dangerous,
especially in this day and age of high threat of terrorism. Terrorists can take advantage and
deliberately cause nuclear meltdown. This is why stringent safeguards including permission
to construct a nuclear power plant and maximum security are put in place to mitigate this
potential catastrophe from happening.
5. It’s not a renewable energy source

The raw material for generation of nuclear energy is uranium. Uranium is mined, which
means it’s not available in many countries. It’s also a scarce resource. Most countries export
this mineral for nuclear energy production. Once uranium is completely extracted, there will
be no nuclear energy production. Because of its dangerous effects and limited in supply, it
doesn’t qualify as a renewable resource.
6. National Risk

Nuclear energy has given us the power to produce more weapons than to produce things that
can make the world a better place to live in. We have to become more careful and responsible
while using nuclear energy to avoid any sort of major accidents. They are hot targets for
militants and terrorist organizations. Security is a major concern here. A little lax in security
can prove to be lethal and brutal for humans and even for this planet.
7. Fuel Availability

Unlike fossil fuels which are available to most of the countries, uranium is very scarce
resource and exist in only few of the countries. Permissions of several international
authorities are required before someone can even thought of building a nuclear power plant.

We all need an energy supply that is reliable, but it also has to be safe. Across the world,
numerous questions are asked each day about nuclear energy. Some countries are looking to
scale down on its development, while others to entirely abandon it. However, there are vital
lessons to be learned about nuclear energy from the events at Fukushima.