a) Suggest the possible environmental consequences of the changes in electricity
consumption shown. (10)
Figure 1 shows the changing consumption of electricity and the changing energy mix
both in recent years and as projections into the near future. While the proportion of
energy sources such as gas and oil remain fairly constant, predictions show coal
consumption more than doubling between 2000 and 2050. Similarly, the renewable
sources of solar and wind will see considerable growth in spite of the lack of
development in the other key renewable. Overall, not only is the energy mix expected to
change signi icantly, but a dramatic increase in global energy consumption of
approximately 130 Exajoules per year is seen from 40 in 2000 to 170 in 2050. This will
have many impacts on the environment due to the fact that electricity production must
rapidly increase to meet growing demands. Further to the fact that many methods of
traditional electricity generation impact negatively on the environment, the decreasing
fossil fuel supplies and the approaching of the point of peak oil must be considered,
meaning that remaining supplies will be more dif icult to access and may require more
unconventional means of extraction. On the other hand, the growth seen in key
renewable energy sources towards the energy mix for electricity generation will reduce
reliance on ‘dirty’ sources and promote greener electricity generation thus reducing
environmental degradation.
Both oil and gas do not see major changes in their future projections but even so their
supply will have to maintained according to the predictions and this could have serious
environmental consequences due to the fact that the inite resources are running out
and therefore other methods or locations will have to be explored. A key example of this
is in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, a fragile ecosystem in which it is hoped
that‘ politically safe’ oil is to be found. In spite of the bene its that such a drilling would
provide both economically and politically, oil and gas exploration in the area would have
many severe environmental impacts such as producing vast quantities of oily waste—
40,000m3 per well, with the risk of polluting water supplies—, nitrous oxide—over
50,000 tonnes, which would lead to acid rain as well as contributing to the enhanced
greenhouse effect—in addition to disturbing the natural behaviour of polar bears, birds
and Beluga whales. Indirectly, this exploration will also require the construction of oil
production infrastructure —for example 280 miles of roads, drilling pads and airports—
all of which will lead to damage to the fragile ecosystem and consequently the loss of
wildlife. In this way it is clear that maintaining oil and gas supplies for increasing
demands for electricity will contribute to severe environmental damage, as decreasing
supplies will require exploration of other potential sources of fossil fuels.
This is further supported by the predicted impact of the Keystone XL oil pipeline—a
1,660 mile pipeline to transport crude oil from Alberta’s tar sands to re ineries in Texas.
The pipeline in its proposal stage experienced great opposition, particularly from
environmental campaigners such as the group 350.org, not only because it was adding to
an unsustainable practice of energy sourcing—tar sands oil is very energy intensive,
requiring two to ive barrels of water per barrel of oil, has a huge carbon footprint and
has led to the removal of 470km2 of forest—but additionally due to the risk of leaks and
water pollution. These devastating environmental impacts are seen in every example of
oil or gas producer due to the unsustainable nature of their production. Oil drilling in the
Niger Delta has resulted in spills of 1.5 million tonnes of oil over the last 50 years and 70
million metres 3 of oil is released into the atmosphere each day because of lare burning.
Spills such as the environmental disaster of the BP Deepwater oil spill (April 2010) are
another environmental consequence of dependence on oil as one of our key energy
sources, which means that its continued production could lead to another disaster as
this that leaked 5000 barrels a day, causing enormous wildlife destruction.
The predictions of Figure 1 show considerable increases in coal as energy source and
this increasing demand will also have major environmental impacts, as coal is a ‘dirty’
fuel, with high emissions of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. As a result, its
consumption will contribute to both the enhanced greenhouse effect and acid rain
consumption shown. (10)
Figure 1 shows the changing consumption of electricity and the changing energy mix
both in recent years and as projections into the near future. While the proportion of
energy sources such as gas and oil remain fairly constant, predictions show coal
consumption more than doubling between 2000 and 2050. Similarly, the renewable
sources of solar and wind will see considerable growth in spite of the lack of
development in the other key renewable. Overall, not only is the energy mix expected to
change signi icantly, but a dramatic increase in global energy consumption of
approximately 130 Exajoules per year is seen from 40 in 2000 to 170 in 2050. This will
have many impacts on the environment due to the fact that electricity production must
rapidly increase to meet growing demands. Further to the fact that many methods of
traditional electricity generation impact negatively on the environment, the decreasing
fossil fuel supplies and the approaching of the point of peak oil must be considered,
meaning that remaining supplies will be more dif icult to access and may require more
unconventional means of extraction. On the other hand, the growth seen in key
renewable energy sources towards the energy mix for electricity generation will reduce
reliance on ‘dirty’ sources and promote greener electricity generation thus reducing
environmental degradation.
Both oil and gas do not see major changes in their future projections but even so their
supply will have to maintained according to the predictions and this could have serious
environmental consequences due to the fact that the inite resources are running out
and therefore other methods or locations will have to be explored. A key example of this
is in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, a fragile ecosystem in which it is hoped
that‘ politically safe’ oil is to be found. In spite of the bene its that such a drilling would
provide both economically and politically, oil and gas exploration in the area would have
many severe environmental impacts such as producing vast quantities of oily waste—
40,000m3 per well, with the risk of polluting water supplies—, nitrous oxide—over
50,000 tonnes, which would lead to acid rain as well as contributing to the enhanced
greenhouse effect—in addition to disturbing the natural behaviour of polar bears, birds
and Beluga whales. Indirectly, this exploration will also require the construction of oil
production infrastructure —for example 280 miles of roads, drilling pads and airports—
all of which will lead to damage to the fragile ecosystem and consequently the loss of
wildlife. In this way it is clear that maintaining oil and gas supplies for increasing
demands for electricity will contribute to severe environmental damage, as decreasing
supplies will require exploration of other potential sources of fossil fuels.
This is further supported by the predicted impact of the Keystone XL oil pipeline—a
1,660 mile pipeline to transport crude oil from Alberta’s tar sands to re ineries in Texas.
The pipeline in its proposal stage experienced great opposition, particularly from
environmental campaigners such as the group 350.org, not only because it was adding to
an unsustainable practice of energy sourcing—tar sands oil is very energy intensive,
requiring two to ive barrels of water per barrel of oil, has a huge carbon footprint and
has led to the removal of 470km2 of forest—but additionally due to the risk of leaks and
water pollution. These devastating environmental impacts are seen in every example of
oil or gas producer due to the unsustainable nature of their production. Oil drilling in the
Niger Delta has resulted in spills of 1.5 million tonnes of oil over the last 50 years and 70
million metres 3 of oil is released into the atmosphere each day because of lare burning.
Spills such as the environmental disaster of the BP Deepwater oil spill (April 2010) are
another environmental consequence of dependence on oil as one of our key energy
sources, which means that its continued production could lead to another disaster as
this that leaked 5000 barrels a day, causing enormous wildlife destruction.
The predictions of Figure 1 show considerable increases in coal as energy source and
this increasing demand will also have major environmental impacts, as coal is a ‘dirty’
fuel, with high emissions of carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. As a result, its
consumption will contribute to both the enhanced greenhouse effect and acid rain
