Pollution Solutions

"Okay. I get it. Air pollution is affecting our health and the environment. But what can I do about it? How can I make a difference? I'm just one man." Well, now you're just being lazy. There is a lot that we can do as individuals to tackle our air pollution emissions--from increasing the energy efficiency of our appliances and light bulbs, to walking to the Taco Bell instead of driving.

Still, there are some emissions that are nearly impossible for the average person to avoid creating. Even the most efficient light bulb still uses some electricity, and sadly the expense of household night vision goggles is still somewhat prohibitive. But don't despair, there are other options. This section provides an overview of larger-scale, society-based actions that are being taken to reduce the effects of the pollution we create. The three avenues through which air pollution is being dealt with are alternative energy choices, emissions control, and enhancement of natural "sinks."

Alternative energy uses different, or alternative, methods to generate energy with less pollution. Emission controls use technologies to capture emissions before they are emitted into the air, thereby reducing the potency of the pollutant. And nature cleans up some of the air pollution mess with natural environmental "sinks", such as trees and oceans. In some instances, it is even possible to enhance these existing natural phenomena to increase their uptake of emissions. None of these methods are going to solve our pollution problems alone, but in combination, and with all of our individual efforts, we will be well on our way to cleaner skies and a healthier environment. So we don't want to hear any more of that quitter talk, thank you very much.

Alternative Energy:

Burning fossil fuels to create electricity generally produces large amounts of emissions. As our skies grow more and more polluted, it is becoming necessary to find alternate, renewable energy sources that do not have such a negative impact upon the environment. There are a number of ways that humans can reduce emissions into the atmosphere. Some have been developed within the past 10 years, such as fuel cells, and some have been used for centuries, like windmills. The great thing is that you don't just have to utilize just one of these methods to decrease pollutants! You can mix-and-match to find the method of emission reduction that best suits your situation. Giddy up!

Wind Energy
Windmills, or wind turbines, are used throughout the globe as a source of 'clean' energy. Wind turbines convert the natural movement of air into electricity. In doing so they--unlike coal, natural gas, and oil--create no CO2, SO2, or NOx emissions.41 A wind turbine works when the blades atop a tower catch a gust of wind and move a hub mounted on a turning shaft. This then turns a generator set inside the tower that transfers the power of the wind into mechanical or electrical energy. The electricity created is channeled into a grid system so that it can be distributed to schools, homes, and businesses. There are 35,000 estimated wind turbines working around the globe today.42 But while wind energy does have several advantages over other methods of power, there are some drawbacks as well. Shadows, noise, and-how shall we put this--avian mortality due to collisions have all been complaints about windfarms. Moreover, wind turbines are only effective in windy areas. Specifically, wind speeds must be 12 to 14 mph.43

Source: Altamont Pass Wind Farm in California. "Wind Energy in California." California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html

Solar Energy
Utilizing solar panels as a way to heat your home means a cut in the amount of electricity you pay every month and reductions in the amount of emissions released into the air. A solar panel is composed of solar cells, which are made of silicon. These cells act as semiconductors, which convert sunlight into electricity. This electricity then flows through a circuit, which is attached by wire to the cells, and into a grid system ready for use.44 Solar panels can be used as windows in homes or offices. They're even used on space stations! The great part is that solar energy is renewable, which means that we can use it again and again-as far as we know, the sun is going to be around for at least another 5 million years! And if it's not, trust us, renewable energy will not be your primary concern. Unfortunately, solar panels are still fairly expensive, but many states offer grants and rebates for solar projects.

Solar electricity can also be produced by building large mirrors that attract sunlight to heat pipes within the mirror. The heated water then turns into steam, which is used to turn a turbine and produce electricity.45 Solar power can also heat water pipes to provide hot water for cooking or bathing or the occasional winter water balloon fight.

Solar Power Plant in the Mojave Desert. Captures sunlight to warm water in underlying pipes to eventually create steam for power. Source: "The Energy Story. Chapter 9: Solar Energy." California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/education/story/story-html/chapter09.html

Geothermal Energy
Geothermal energy uses the heat that comes from beneath the Earth's surface to create electricity. The internal heat of the Earth results mostly from the decay of radioactive nuclei that were incorporated into the planet's core when it was formed.46 Geothermal energy is created by harnessing either the dry steam, wet steam, or hot water that is generated underground. Each of these can be extracted from molten rock, magma, hot dry rock zones, or warm rock reservoir deposits. Geothermal producers essentially use elongated pipes that access the heat and water under the earth's core and bring it to the surface. Here, the hot water is transformed into steam, which powers generators and creates electricity with very little pollution. This is being done on a large scale in California, but it is also used for small-scale residential or commercial heating. The drawback to relying on geothermal energy is that the intense heat is not evenly distributed over the globe, so only certain areas can really take advantage of this methodology.

Geysers from a plant in California. Source: INEEL Geothermal site http://id.inel.gov/geothermal/gallery/index.html

Hydroelectric Power
Bodysurfers have known this for years, but moving water creates large amounts of energy. Therefore, if you can harness the movement of water, you will be able to capture a powerful, clean source of energy. Large amounts of water can be used to push items, such as wheels or blades, which in turn can move generators to produce electricity. The Hoover Dam is an example of capturing the movement of water in order to utilize the energy it possesses for human benefit. Norway actually obtains 99% of its electricity from waterpower (Norwegians, is there anything they can't do?).47 This method of creating electricity generates minimal air and water pollution. Additionally, these reservoirs of water can be used for irrigation, flood protection, and recreation.48 Dams typically have a life span of 50-200 years, because silt eventually builds up and it affects the quality and effectiveness of the water.

Small-scale dams can be an important part of a sustainable energy system. Unfortunately, however, many of the dams we have built in the U.S. are not sustainable. They have turned great canyons into reservoirs, disrupted entire ecosystems, and continue to threaten species. This has become an increasingly controversial issue. For example, efforts are underway on the Snake River in the Pacific Northwest to convince people of the benefits of breaching hydroelectric dams in order to save the salmon population.49

Nuclear Energy
In the United States about 22% of our electricity, or 728 billion-kilowatt hours, comes from nuclear power. While we are not as dependent on nuclear power as other countries such as France, which gets 79% of its energy from nuclear power, we do generate a staggering amount of nuclear electricity.50 Nuclear reactors are actually promoted by a few environmentalists, because they are unaffected by the potential shortage of fossil fuels and they do not emit carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, or carbon monoxide into the atmosphere. But, most environmental advocates do not see nuclear power as a solution to our energy needs, because nuclear reactors and the radioactive waste they generate are incredibly hazardous to humans and other species.

So how does nuclear power work? When the element uranium undergoes fission (the splitting apart of atoms) within a reactor, energy is released in the form of heat. Uranium is a naturally occurring, very hard, heavy, silvery, radioactive metallic element that is fairly abundant in the Earth's crust. But it must be enriched to be used for most commercial power generation.51 One ton of natural uranium can produce more than 40 million kilowatt-hours of electricity. This is equivalent to burning 16,000 tons of coal or 80,000 barrels of oil.52

Ah, but here's the rub. Radioactivity is toxic to humans and other animals. Exposure to radiation can increase susceptibility to cancer and many other medical problems. One of the dangers of relying on nuclear energy is the potential of the core in the reactor to overheat. If the core overheats then there is the potential for a meltdown of the reactor that would then release clouds of radioactivity into the environment.

In addition to this, nuclear power generation is responsible for radioactive waste from uranium mining and processing, high level waste such as spent nuclear fuel, and low level waste such as contaminated clothing. Nuclear generation is expected to produce 75,000 metric tons of high level radioactive waste by the year 2015.53 It is estimated that radioactive waste without plutonium must be stored for at least 10,000 years before it becomes harmless, and 24,000 years if the plutonium is not extracted. So remember folks, always extract your plutonium before you discard your radioactive waste. Current technology gives us few affordable options for dealing with this waste.

The United States is currently developing a nuclear repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada to try to handle some of it.54 But disposing of the waste in this form would involve encasing high level radioactive waste, transporting it across the country, and then burying it in the earth for 10,000 years. This places every community it passes through at risk, and poses a very serious long-term health risk, because very few things on the planet stay untouched for that long. We're a nosy, nosy bunch.

Biomass
Using vegetation, such as agricultural and animal wastes, to meet energy demands is a practice that dates back thousands of years. Plus, it is a resource that is virtually inexhaustible, as your neighbor's dog will likely attest. Today, biomass is usually burned to transform water into steam that is then used to drive a turbine.55 Wood matter can also provide heat energy and be used as a fuel to generate electricity. Biomass is essentially just a combination of all the junk you no longer want. But instead of sending it to the dump, you actually make something out of it. Essentially , you kill two birds with one stone. You get rid of your waste, and you get energy. Biomass can be turned into ethanol and/or methane, an alcohol fuel for cars, or it can be recycled into new products, which helps reduce the emissions that are normally created when manufacturing brand new goods. Unfortunately, if this process is not performed correctly, it can potentially be a big source of pollution.

Fuel Cells
Emissions from a fuel cell system are lower than emissions from the combustion process because fuel cells rely on chemistry rather than burning. Fuel cells produce electricity and heat as long as fuel--natural gas, methane, or any hydrocarbon--is provided. A fuel cell is basically two electrodes around an electrolyte. Oxygen and hydrogen then pass over the electrolyte to form electricity. There are several types of fuel cells that operate at varying temperatures and with different electrolytes. The most common is phosphoric acid, which generates electricity at 40% efficiency.56 Many folks are looking to fuel cells as an important part of a future distributed generation power system-a system in which we no longer rely on giant power plants connected by thousands of miles of transportation wires, but generate power in our own neighborhoods. Fuel cells are also used in transportation. Some cities are already experimenting with fuel cell buses. Fuel cells are not exactly on the shelves at the local Wal-Mart yet, but in the next few years they should become increasingly more available (although you still may not be able to get them at Wal-Mart).

Alternative fuels
The use of public transportation reduces emissions into the air by a great deal, especially if the transportation runs on electricity rather than fossil fuels. By taking the train or bus to various destinations, people can reduce their own emissions and make the aggregate less for their region. However, even taking public transportation still creates emissions if your mode of transportation runs on gasoline or electricity. So, alternative fuels are being proposed and, in some instances, are already in use. One of these fuels is ethanol, which is produced from crops like corn. Another is methanol, which is produced from natural gas and is a cleaner-burning fuel. There is even hope that cars in the future will run on hydrogen that will only emit water vapor as exhaust!57

Control:

Even with alternate and more efficient energy methods available, emissions are still produced. So what is to be done? Technologies that capture emissions before they are emitted into the air, or even take emissions out of the air once they are already there, are a start.

Catalytic Converters
All vehicles made after 1975 (even Ford Pintos), as mandated by U.S. federal law, must be equipped with catalytic converters. Because most of the time fuel combustion is an incomplete process, it creates a lot of emissions. The role of catalytic converters is to aid the combustion process and convert what are viewed as more harmful pollutants into 'less' harmful pollutants before they are expelled into the air via the exhaust pipe. Catalytic converters control for carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons. So rather then producing large amounts of those bad emissions, cars instead emit carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water. The downside is that carbon dioxide is still a greenhouse gas, and therefore it isn't really a better emission substitute.

There are a number of other features within automobiles that manufacturers have created to cut down emission levels. These features include fuel filler caps, purge valves, vapor storage canisters, and dual walled exhaust pipes. And all are available for the 1976 Ford Pinto. Go get 'em, tiger.

Scrubbers
When most of us think of air pollution, we think of a smokestack spewing big black clouds into the sky. Yes, cartoons have permeated our national consciousness that much. But this time, the cartoons have it right-this actually happens. Scrubbers are used to prevent those big black clouds. A scrubbing device is placed on smelter smokestacks to cut down on lead and sulfur dioxide emissions. The scrubber is essentially a housing unit, which utilizes a spray of lime and water to remove pollutant fumes and particles. Basically, a potentially polluting gas comes into contact with a sorbent designed to absorb and react with it. There are many different types of scrubbers. The majority fall under the title "wet scrubber", but there are also "dry scrubbers". Wet scrubbers are often used to control emissions from coal and oil combustion from electric and industrial sources. The scrubber technology removes air pollutants by inertial, diffusional impaction, or interception.58 Very few cartoons actually cover this process.

Others
Catalytic converters and scrubbers were discussed more in depth because they are two of the most prominent technologies created for reducing the effects of major pollutants. There are, however, other technologies that are more specific to certain appliances and businesses. A good example is a structure known as a bag house, which is used to help stop small particulates from entering the atmosphere from smokestacks. In this process, clean air is blown through a woven fabric. This forces particulate to collect at the bottom of the bag where it can then be disposed of properly.59 Diesel traps, which are primarily diesel filters, control diesel particulate matter emissions by physically trapping the particulates in the exhaust.

Sinks:

The concept of a natural "sink" is essentially based on the idea that there are several naturally occurring phenomena that take CO2 out of the air by their very nature. Because of this, they are considered natural "sinks" for the emission.

Trees
The first natural sink for CO2 is a tree. Due to the intrinsic functionality of trees, they need to take CO2 out of the air in order to survive. In exchange, they give off oxygen that we can breathe. It's really a win-win situation. The problem is that the rate at which humans are producing carbon dioxide is exceeding the rate at which trees can uptake the emission. This means that the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere and contributes to global warming.

One of the ways that humans have attempted to use this natural phenomenon to their advantage is to plant more trees around the globe, thus multiplying the number of trees to take CO2 out of the air. Tree farms are springing up from Tijuana to Taipei to be used as CO2 sinks, but sadly they are imperfect solutions to global warming. First of all, tree farms are not sufficient substitutes for natural arboreal ecosystems. A tree farm does not support the biodiversity that a forest does. If fast growing tree farms were to replace forests around the world, we would lose many forest dwelling species. In addition, less dense, faster growing trees require less CO2 as they mature, so the creation of new trees is not the answer to destroying old growth forests.

Secondly, there is the issue of scale. Every person on Earth would need to plant and tend to 1,000 trees per year to absorb the amount of CO2 humans are currently putting into the atmosphere.60 Although this may not seem like much of an issue to you, we just don't have that kind of space.

Finally, new data came out in the beginning of November 2000, showing that planting more trees might not be the optimal solution for reducing global CO2 levels. According to the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, climate change will eventually accelerate because increased CO2 will be released from soils and decaying forests as temperatures rise.61 In addition, more trees planted means more sunlight absorbed which in turn means increased temperature. This data has not been fully verified yet, but either way it is clear that this issue is more complicated than was first thought.

Oceans
Oceans are also a natural "sink" for CO2. Unlike trees, however, humans can not create new oceans to suck up more carbon dioxide. Believe me, we've tried. We we're repeatedly thwarted at puddle-phase. Rather this is a natural phenomenon that is hindered as more CO2 continues to accumulate in the atmosphere. CO2 can dissolve into oceans, but it takes many years and must first be converted into bicarbonate. Additionally, carbon dioxide dissolves best in cold water, which means that it must travel by convection currents to the lower levels of ocean water. As the world grows warmer, it will become harder for the CO2 to dissipate.

It has been suggested that humans add iron to the oceans to stimulate the growth of marine algae that would in turn remove more of the CO2 that is in the atmosphere. The algae, however, would only be able to uptake about a 1/3 of the total amount, and the cost of implementing this would be $10-$110 billion annually! We've been checking our couch cushions, but we still seem to be a bit short.

41. Comparative Air Emissions Of Wind and Other Fuels. American Wind Energy Association. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheet.html (Nov. 2000)
42. 2 Vision 2030: The Future is Here. GreenPeace.
http://www.greenpeace.org/-climate/renewables/reports/brief6.html (Nov. 2000)
43. 3Wind Energy in California. California Energy Commission, September 1998. http://www.energy.ca.gov/wind/overview.html (Nov. 2000)
44. 4Power. Qualitative Reasoning Group: The Institute for the Learning Sciences Northwestern University. http://www.qrg.ils.nwu.edu/projects…/I-how-do-solar-panels-convert.html (Nov. 2000)
45. The Energy Story: Wind Energy. California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/education/story/story-html/chapter10.html (16 Nov. 2000).
46. Ristinen, Robert and Jack Kraushaar. Energy and the Environment. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1999 p.158
47. Ibid. p.127
48. Ibid. p.130
49. Breaching Snake dams best option, NMFS says. Environmental News Network, April 16, 1999. http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1999/04/041699/breach_2707.asp (Nov. 2000)
50. Ristinen p.172
51. The Virtual Nuclear Tourist. Joseph Gonyeau. http://www.cannon.net/~gonyeau/nuclear/index.htm (Nov. 2000)
52. Public Information: Uranium Fast Facts. Department of Energy- Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology. http://www.ne.doe.gov (Nov. 2000)
53. How Nuclear Power Works. The Union of Concerned Scientists. http://www.ucsusa.org (Nov. 2000)
54. About Yucca Mountain. United States Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca/about.htm (Nov. 2000)
55. Clean Energy: Biomass. United States Environmental Protection Agency www.epa.gov/glo…ions/cleanenergy/biomass/index.html (15 Nov. 2000)
56. What is a Fuel Cell?. Fuel Cells 2000. http://216.51.18.233/whatis.html (Nov. 2000)
57. The Energy Story: Energy for Transportation. California Energy Commission. http://www.energy.ca.gov/education/story/story-html/chapter13.html (6 Nov. 2000).
58. Air Pollution Technology Fact Sheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc (Nov. 2000).
59. Ristinen p.313
60. Miller, Robert. Living in the Environment. New York: Wadsworth Publishing International, 1998. p. 378
61. Forests Could Accelerate Global Warming. Environmental News Service, November 9th, 2000. http://ens-news.com/ens/nov2000/2000L-11-09-11.html (13 Nov. 2000).