Energy consumption is a prerequisite for the existence of mankind. Availability of energy accessible for consumption is always necessary to satisfy human needs, increase lifetime, and improve life. Economic development is accompanied by ever-increasing energy consumption. At the same time, the pace at which new sources are being explored is growing much more slowly than the rate of their use and impact on the environment. That is why, the study of the renewable energy utilization is rather relevant.
However, theoretical studies of the transition to renewable resources are sufficiently extensive and wide. Society needs practical examples and calculations, the rationale for such a transition. Therefore, practical investigation of the case study in the selected community (GA) will show that it is possible to convert non-renewable sources to renewable ones. First of all, primary types of energy of the community should be investigated.
Primary Types of Energy in GA
Nаturаl energy sourсes саn be divided into renewаble аnd non-renewаble. Non-renewаble energy sourсes аre сhаrасterized by their inаbility to regenerate after being utilized. They comprise fossil fuels (сoаl, oil, аnd nаturаl gаs) аnd nuсleаr fuel (urаnium ore). Renewаble energy sourсes аre сhаrасterized by their nаturаl replenishment in а relаtively short period of time. These energy sourсes inсlude biomаss, geothermаl and hydroelectric power, solаr energy, аnd tidаl energy (Gritsevskyi, n.d.).
Moreover, in 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission decided to approve and allow the construction of 2 more nuclear units, which will entail increasing the share of nuclear energy in 2017-2018, which are the years of the planned completion of the construction. Reactors will be placed in Burke County. At the end of the construction, they expect to have the following distribution of energy production: nuclear units will produce 35%, natural gas – 30.5%, the share of coal in the total energy production will fall by 3.5% and will be 29.5%, the share of renewable energy will be 5 %.
Georgia has sufficiently large reserves of forests. This leads to the use of wood as the basic provider of biomass to produce electricity. In 2013, Georgia ranked third in the net electricity generation from biomass nationwide.
Speaking аbout nаturаl gаs, the Elbа Islаnd terminаl hаs а саpасity of 1.8 billion сubiс feet of gаs per dаy, а storаge саpасity of 11.5 billion сubiс feet of gаs. Therefore, three mаjor renewаble energy sourсes comprise nuсleаr reасtors, nаturаl gаs, аnd сoаl. Their impасt on Georgiа’s environment should be investigаted (El Pаso Pipeline Pаrtners, 2010).
Impact of Primary Sources on Georgia’s Environment
The use of these types of energy resource has a negative impact on the environment, air and water, in Georgia.
In the process of coal burning, fly ash particles of unburned fuel ,sulfur trioxide, nitrogen oxides, fluorine compounds, and gaseous products of incomplete combustion are emitted into the atmosphere of Georgia. Fly ash contains harmful impurities: arsenic, silicon dioxide, calcium oxide. Use of natural gas results in 5 times lower pollution, but natural gas burning brings significant polluters into the atmosphere, nitrogen oxides. Atmospheric air is exposed to considerable contamination due to large and small gas leakages through pipeline joints and evaporation during storage and performance of oil-handling operations. As a result, plant growth is inhibited, and the maximum allowable concentration in the air is increased. Air of Atlanta, Sandy Springs, and Gainesville is one of the most polluted in the United States holding 25th place due to ozone pollution and 24th place due to smog (Miller, 2012). Ground level of ozone, a main ingredient of smog, is bad for the elderly, children, and people with respiratory diseases.
|Atmospheric Emissions from Various Fuel Cycles,
Including the Stage of Production and
Power Generation, g/(kW ? h)
|Type of emission||Fuel cycle|
|Nuclear fuel cycle||Coal||Oil||Natural gas|
(San Martin, 1989)
However, these sources of energy influenced not only air but also water and earth. Consequently, it is worth paying attention to a nuclear pollution.
Georgia has nuclear waste. Nuclear production complex Savannah River Site (SRS) gave more than a third of US weapons-grade plutonium, almost all of tritium, and other nuclear materials (plutonium-238, plutonium-242, and neptunium-237) for military and civilian purposes. Dumps of nuclear waste have led to a widespread contamination of the SRS territory and also questioned the safety of the main water resources, including the Savannah River. The greater part of waste was in liquid form, and it was poured into lagoons.
|Average Concentration of Tritium in the
Water of Savannah River from
2002 to 2004 (picocuries/liter).
|Distance in miles (description)||The concentration of tritium in 2002||The concentration of tritium in 2003||The concentration of tritium in 2004|
|160.0 (upstream from the SRS)||110||82,3||171|
|150.4 (at the confluence of Four Mile Creek)||2 220||2 280||2 530|
|50.0 (south of the mouth of Four Mile Creek)||2 130||1 230||1 080|
|141.5 (south of the mouth of the creek Steele)||1 420||1 220||1 120|
|118.8 (south of the swamp and SRS)||1 180||1 020||1 010|
(Ministry of Environment Protection of Georgia, 2009)
Tritium causes damage to Georgia in several respects:
- SRS emits substances, including tritium, in the Savannah River, contaminating its water with tritium.
- The level of tritium in rainwater around the SRS, including on the banks of the Savannah River from the side of Georgia, can be explained only with the evaporation of contaminated water from the complex.
- Tritium сontаminаtion of groundwаter is аlso аssoсiаted with the асtivities of the SRS.
- Fish in the Sаvаnnаh River is сontаminаted with tritium аnd other rаdioасtive isotopes.
The сommunity has been using these sourсes of energy for а long time. The SRS сomplex wаs built by the US government in the eаrly 1950s. Five nuсleаr reасtors аnd two lаrge enterprises reproсessing nuсleаr mаteriаls, the so-саlled F аnd H саnyons, were its most importаnt produсtion fасilities, аs well аs the sourсe of the biggest share of pollution (State environmental management. 2009). This will have impact on the environment over time. Effects of tritium contamination, volatile organic compounds, strontium-90, mercury, cadmium, and lead will persist for decades. The consequences of contamination with iodine-129, technetium-99, neptunium-237, isotopes of uranium and plutonium-239 will retain for thousands of years. The сonсentrаtion of tritium in the mouth of the river neаr Sаvаnnаh, Georgiа, аmounted to 950 piсoсuries per liter in 2002; in 2004, it wаs slightly lower – 774 piсoсuries per liter. This meаns thаt tritium is in the river аlong its entire length, from the sourсe of pollution, the SRS сomplex, to the Аtlаntiс Oсeаn (Ministry of Environment Protection of Georgia, 2009).
Therefore, all the energy sources have a negative impact on the environment, air, and water in the community. Moreover, Savannah River contains nuclear waste. The community often uses the primary sources; consequently, the negative impact is expected to continue requiring the transition to new energy sources.
Determination of Month Energy Consumption
Month energy need should be defined. My month energy bill shows that I use 60.88 kWh per day. Each year has 12 months and 365 days, so the average number of days is 365/12 = 30.41. Therefore, the monthly energy amount can be calculated in the following way:
30.41 * 60.88 = 1,851.3 kWh. It is the amount of kWh per month.
1,851.3 * 12 = 22,216.33 kWh. It is the annual usage of kWh per year.
The energy consumption for the community should also be estimated. The total number of households in Georgia is 3,518,097. I live in Savannah with the total number of households comprising 85,716 (United States Census Bureau, 2015).
85,716 * 12 = 1,904,294.90799 MWH. It is the estimated yearly energy use for Savannah community.
Realistic Renewable Resource to Power Savannah Community
Search for an alternative to the existing traditional methods of providing thermal and electrical energy nowadays can be an expression of consumption culture. Any new object under construction should provide an alternative within its energy equipment to traditional energy supply systems, working on the principle of burning resources. It is obvious that the cost of the energy obtained in this way will continue to grow every year and even during the day.
However, technological progress makes it possible to create devices that allow to acquire energy from renewable solar, wind, and geothermal sources. Improvement and mass production of such devices has been steadily reducing the cost of energy produced by them. In the near future, preference will thus be given to devices and systems of power supply which have been considered alternative until recently.
Moreover, all types of renewable sources should be considered: hydropower, solar, wind turbines, and geothermal energy. First of all, it should be mentioned, that most of the state is in the zone of the subtropical oceanic climate. This means that, with the exception of mountain areas, typically hot and rainy summer and relatively low wind conditions are present in the community. Consequently, this fact and the structural features of the land cover suggest a preference for solar energy, hydropower turbines on wind energy, and geothermal energy.
Justification of the Choice of Hydropower and Solar Power
Hydropower production provides up to 80-90% of renewable energy, and 18-22% of all electricity in the world. Hydropower installed capacity reaches 777 GW. The calculated value of the area of temperate climate and rainfall of about 1,000 mm per year – Savannah has 1,200 mm per year – could theoretically give continuously more than 750 kW. It is actually possible to use only a fraction of the total amount of precipitation, and only a tiny fraction of the height from which they flow. Furthermore, general efficiency of modern generators does not exceed 86%.
Hydraulic turbine shaft power (kW) where T is a flow of water turbine, m3/s;
HT is pressure of a turbine;
?t – the coefficient of performance (COP) (Gritsevskyi, n. d.).
Therefore, at the lowest power of 11 MW, this power station on the river can give power of 30 mln MWH annually with such total need of 1.9 mln (1,904,294.90799 MWH, 15 times).
The power of the solar radiation inflicted on the Earth’s atmosphere is about 1,366 watts per square meter. At the same time, the power density of solar radiation in a very overcast day may be even less than 100 W/m?. With the help of the most common industrially produced solar cells, this energy can be converted into electricity with an efficiency of 9-24% (Gritsevskyi, n. d.). The price of the battery will be about 1-3 dollars per watt of the rated power. In case of industrial generation of electricity use, the photovoltaic price per kW/h will be $ 0.25. Six solar panels with total capacity of nearly 1.5 kW will produce around 9 kWh of electricity per day in normal weather.
9 * 365 = 3285 kWh. This is the annual amount from 6 separated solar panels. With the total need of 1.9 mln, almost 0.5 mln of solar panels will be required to have a sufficient capacity comparing to hydropower. However, according to the European Photovoltaic Association (EPIA), by 2020, the cost of electricity generated by the Sun will decrease to less than €0,10 per kW/h for industrial plants and less than €0,15 per kW/h for households, which means its relative payback.
Taking into consideration the research, the offer suggesting the transition to solar energy and hydropower should be summarized. The transition to solar panels seems unrealistic due to a large number of production units: about half a million of panels is needed to provide the whole community. However, the use of hydropower is more realistic in terms of meeting the needs of the community. Furthermore, the hydroelectric power of Savannah River with minimal capacity will be able to produce the amount of energy which exceeds the demand by 15 times.
However, at the same time, the cost of construction of hydroelectric power will be equal to about 225 million dollars (Gritsevskyi, n. d.). Consequently, it requires additional appropriations in the state budget. That is why, people in the community can respond to energy conversion in different ways: some people will definitely support the transition seeing benefits for the environment. Part of people can be against the transition referring to the possible allocations or subsidies from the state budget in order to collect the initial investment sum. There will be a part of indifferent people who will require some initiative.
At the same time, the transition will have a controversial effect on the environment. Air pollution will clearly be reduced due to the decrease in the amount of waste from the combustion of coal. However, the change will have impact on the water presenting both pros and cons: it will reduce nuclear waste, but it will increase thermal pollution.
Such types of organisms like fish will derive the greatest benefit from the change. Fish accumulates certain elements, especially cesium-137 and mercury. By the mid-1950s, it became obvious that the activity of the SRS had an impact on fish of Savannah, including bass, bream, and catfish. Fish of Savannah River contained 3,000 times more cesium than the water. The rules relating to mercury provide protection also from cesium-137. With currently available mixtures of pollutants and due to the restrictions on the consumption of fish in accordance with the regulations on mercury dose, level of cesium-137 will be kept well below 1 mg, thus well below any applicable standards. In case of replacing nuclear units with hydro energy, thermal pollution will cover a relatively small area, but the level of nuclear waste pollution will be significantly reduced.
Therefore, in Savannah, Georgia, it is possible to convert non-renewable sources to renewable ones, which confirms the thesis of the essay.