Choosing an Alternative Source of Energy
I can hear you asking, “What’s wrong with wood-burning?” This is not necessarily an easy question to answer, but I’ll try. People burn wood for heat in their homes for different reasons. First, many people burn wood in order to save money. It has been proven that increased gas and electricity prices increase the use and ownership of wood-burning stoves (Morss). Wood is fairly cheap to gather. A 1990 study by the Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station found that the only monetary costs involved are forest permits and gasoline for the vehicle transporting the wood. The estimated cost of gathering one’s own wood in Colorado was $40.00. The average person spends about ten hours gathering wood, not including the time spent splitting wood after transportation. Since many people consider wood cutting and gathering a recreational activity, the time consumed is not considered costly and it is enjoyable (Betters).
The second reason people burn wood is for its aesthetic, rustic value. Also, there are many homes that are too remote to be served by electricity, or that cannot afford to have electricity installed, which rely solely on wood for heat. What better way to “get back to nature” than to hunt for and gather wood? And who doesn’t like to cuddle in front of a crackling fire on miserable winter evenings?
Third, wood-burning is popular because many people believe that wood is a non-polluting renewable resource. It has been debated whether, when wood burns, it releases carbon dioxide, the gas which is created during the burning of fossil fuels and responsible for depleting the ozone. However, even in the event that wood burning does release carbon dioxide, it is considerably less than that released by the burning of fossil fuels (Schwab). Trees can be grown and harvested, and there are plenty of forested areas in North America in which to gather wood. Therefore, it does not appear that there is or will be a shortage of fuelwood in the near future.
Of course, there are problems with wood burning. The resource may not be as renewable as we’d like to believe. Though it appears that there are plenty of trees in the forests where we gather wood, this supply could easily be depleted. In Australia, for instance, 6.8 million tons of firewood are consumed each year (Dowsett). Alarm is being raised due to the fact that the harvested trees are not being replaced. Though firewood is gathered from fallen or dead trees, this biomass is crucial to the forest ecosystem. In Australia, these trees have been found to provide nutrients to the forest floor as well as homes to birds, spiders, ants, and other animals: “Their vital food sources are destroyed, and old trees with nesting hollows removed. Nationally, more than five million birds are killed each year from habitat loss due to native vegetation clearance” (Dowsett).
Also, burning wood does create pollution. Many mountain towns in Colorado have banned the use of wood burning stoves on certain days because the smoke from these stoves becomes trapped above the town (Quillen). The pollution appears in the form of tiny particulates released by burning wood which create a haze over the towns. Though new wood burning stoves release far fewer particulates into the air than the stoves of ten years ago (Schwab), small amounts of particulates are still released into the air. I’ve decided to stop using my wood burning stove.
The alternatives to wood burning include increasing the use of natural gas and electricity. Many people heat with natural gas. Natural gas is extremely clean burning, and therefore an attractive option for those who are concerned about air pollution. It is also easy for consumers to obtain and very economical. Pipelines make transportation safe and transportation costs are fixed in the pipelines. In April 1999, the average price of natural gas was $6.29 per thousand cubic feet (US Dept. of Energy).
However, just like wood, natural gas has its bad points. First, natural gas must be drilled from the ground. This drilling can be very destructive to the environment. Many natural gas reservoirs are found in mountainous and forested regions. Therefore, it is necessary to clear cut the area to be drilled. Roads are built in order to transport the gas, increasing fragmentation and decreasing the habitat of native species of plants and animals. In the White River National Forest of Colorado, oil and gas excavation contributes to the 3,000 miles of roads (Shumaker). Many wells are also drilled near homes and communities. Companies such as Evergreen Resources of have been forced to hide unsightly rigs and equipment in order to appease angry homeowners (Frazier). Also, drilling for natural gas leads to the possibility of water contamination. Although Evergreen Resources hid their rigs to appease the public, they fell under suit from local residents who claimed that the water that “had been trapped in fissures and hollows until the wells were drilled for gas” entered their water supply, contaminating it with fluoride, barium, iron, and chloride (Frazier). Also, though many gas companies will not admit it, natural gas is a limited resource. There is a lot of natural gas to be mined, however, the drilling of wells to obtain this gas means the creation of more roads and the destruction of important and sensitive habitat.
Electricity is another popular source of heat for homes. I have electric baseboard heating, which I have begun to use more of. Electricity is the most economical form of energy and it is the most easily available. Most homes use approximately 800 kilowatt hours of electricity per month. One kilowatt hour costs 6.67 cents (Daily). Electricity is usually thought to be the most environmentally sound form of energy. However, the environmental friendliness of electricity is dependent on its source.
There are many different ways that electricity can be made. The most popular and usual source of electricity is the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels include coal, oil, and natural gas. Coal and oil are the biggest polluters and largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, the gas responsible for the greenhouse effect. In Colorado in 1998, 58% of our power came from coal plants, while just 5% came from oil (Daily). As discussed above, natural gas is a very clean burning fuel. Natural gas accounted for 4% of the electricity produced (Daily). However, it is very rare that natural gas is burned alone in order to produce electricity. It is usually combined with oil and coal. Oil and coal are both extremely limited resources. Though they are highly efficient in producing electricity, and relatively cheap, they reek environmental havoc. The drilling and mining of these fuels create similar problems to the drilling of natural gas. However, while natural gas is usually transported domestically over land, oil and coal must be transported overseas. The environmental disasters that occur when tanker are overturned or found to leak can be devastating to plants, animals, and humans.
Another source of electricity is hydropower. Hydropower was once the leading source of energy in the United States: “Dams were built across the United States to provide power for many kinds of industries, from textile mills to aluminum refineries” (Botkin). However, due to the availability, efficiency, and economy of fossil fuels, hydropower now accounts for 33% of the electricity being generated. Hydropower is a relatively clean form of energy; there is no air pollution caused by its use. However, there are other environmental issues associated with hydropower. Dams must be built to harness the water’s energy. Damming tends to involve the flooding of valleys in order to create a reservoir of water to be used for power. Not only does damming destroy hundreds of acres of habitat for plants and animals, but it severely disrupts the ecosystems down river from the dam. Migrating fish such as shad and salmon are unable to migrate, and therefore unable to reproduce. Even “salmon safe” dams are not entirely fish friendly (Botkin).
If gas, popular forms of electricity, and wood are all environmentally unsound, what are our options for heating our homes, running our computers, and cooking our food? There are still several sources of electricity that have not yet been discussed. In order to cut down on green house gases, habitat disruption and air pollution, alternative options to traditional forms of electricity are being investigated. Two of these options, and the most developed, are solar and wind energy.
There is, however, another proposition for creating a sustainable source of electricity which I would like to discuss first. The source is forest-energy plantations. The idea behind these plantations is that trees are grown for the sole purpose of being burned to produce energy (Sedjo). The premise behind forest-energy plantations is a good one. The continual harvesting, planting, and cultivation of trees would provide as renewable resource. Also, the planting of thousands of trees would help to pull more pollution from the air. The increased use of wood as an energy source would decrease the reliance on fossil fuels, furthering the cleansing of the air through the living trees and possibly neutralizing the greenhouse effect (Sedjo 564). These benefits are all in theory, of course, and there are a few catches.
First, the trees that would be grown on proposed plantations in Ontario, Canada are genetically altered poplars, not the average native poplar (Cocklin 355). Actually, these trees would be cloned in order to increase efficiency and desirable wood quality: “More than 130 hybrid poplar clones have been developed and evaluated according to productivity and energy content, as well as other desirable characteristics such as pest resistance and rooting” (Cocklin 358). Not only is cloning itself a controversial issue, but who knows what could happen to neighboring forest ecosystems if these poplars begin to disperse. Also, burning wood does create some air pollution. The idea with burning the wood from forest energy plantations is that they produce less pollution than fossil fuels.
So, this is the question that I must ask, “Why not still plant hundreds of acres of forest, with native species of trees, in order to reduce the amounts of CO2 in the air, and choose another source of power which does not pollute at all and leaves our trees standing?” Wind and solar power might provide a solution.
First, a look at wind power. Wind power has been successful in Europe for centuries. As new turbines are being developed, wind power is becoming increasingly more efficient. It is also becoming more consumer friendly. In Colorado, increasing numbers of electric utilities are allowing consumers to buy blocks of wind power from wind farm in Medicine Bow, WY. One block of wind power is equal to 100 kWh (Daily). Blocks of electricity can be purchased for $2.50 additional to the usual electricity bill. A home or business can buy as many blocks as they can afford; some people buy more blocks than they use (Daily). New Belgium Brewing Company of Ft. Collins, Colorado now receives all of their electricity from wind (Smith).
Wind power is renewable and creates no air pollution. Like the other sources of energy, there are some problems. Wind power is more costly, to consumers than traditional forms of electricity. Also, visual and noise pollution are created by wind farms. They take up a lot of space, but the area surround the wind farms remains usable for farming and ranching (Flavin, Harnessing). The biggest problem with wind farms is that they are responsible for thousands of bird deaths each year: “The avian mortality effect of wind power is different from bird mortality due to stationary objects. Explained one study, ‘Wind farms have been documented to act as both the bait and the executioner; rodents taking shelter at the base of turbines multiply with the protection from raptors, while in turn, their greater numbers attract more raptors to the farm'” (Bradley). Many of these birds are protected by law and are endangered species. Altamont Pass wind farm in California has been targeted for killing golden eagles, Aquila chrysaetos, and red-tailed hawks (Bradley). However, it is believed that as wind power becomes more popular, wind farms will be moved from mountainous regions to flatter prairie areas such as North and South Dakota, where there are not as many endangered and protected species of birds (Flavin, Harnessing).
Solar power is quite possibly the most environmentally friendly form of energy available. The world market for solar cells has risen from $340 million in 1988 to about $1 billion in 1991 (Flavin, Clean). Though it is extremely costly to most consumers, houses which are not attached to an electric grid find solar power more economical than electricity: “A [photovoltaic] power system capable of supplying the [latter] country home could easily tip the scales at over $50,000. Now if the choice is between this and extending the power grid a few miles to your new country home, paying the utility $10-$15 a foot to do it, such an investment would pay for itself the minute you turned it on” (Bownell). Through increased technology and a new interest in solar power, the price is steadily dropping. Since solar panel can be placed on top of buildings, they are unobtrusive to the sight and to the environment.
The biggest problems with solar energy right now are the efficiency of the units and the cost. Due to the currently low efficiency of solar power, it is nearly impossible for a home to subsist entirely only on solar energy: “Solar energy’s biggest problem and at the same time most encouraging feature is that it demands that we re-think every light switch and appliance, every needless waste of energy in our homes” (Bownell). Often supplementary wind power or electricity generated in another form must be used. However, with careful choosing and use of appliances, it is possible to run a home that is entirely solar reliant.
So, what is the best energy option? The most environmentally friendly option is probably a combination of wind and solar power. Consumers across the country are becoming increasingly able to choose the energy source of their electricity. A large consumer push for electric utilities to purchase wind or solar generated energy will bring down the price of each. In addition, choosing these sources would decrease demand on fossil fuels and natural gas: reserving supplies, reducing air pollution, and habitat destruction. Also, a larger consumer interest in alternate sources of energy would increase the rate and amount of research and development of more bird-friendly wind and more efficient solar power.
Here is what I suggest: We should leave our forests in tact by not burning wood. That means not burning it in our homes, and not encouraging the establishment of forest-energy plantations. We should, however, encourage the reforesting of areas in need, and the planting of trees in general. Not only will there be less pollutants released in the air, but there will be more trees to trap what’s already there. Speak to local energy suppliers about the availability of alternate sources of energy, and letting them know about our concerns will also help to push toward more environmentally healthy forms of energy. In Gunnison County, it is possible to buy blocks of wind power through Gunnison County Electric. In terms of pollution, each block of wind power is the equivalent of planting one acre of trees each year (Daily). I’m trying to convince my landlords (who may the electric bill) to buy blocks of wind power. I’m willing to pay the additional costs. The best thing that anyone can do is to stay informed about new developments and discoveries regarding solar, wind, and new sources of power, and then utilize them. The power is in our hands. We must decide what to do with it.
Works Cited:
Betters, David et. al. Cost, Time, and Benefit Measures for Personal Use Fuelwood Collection in Colorado. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper RM-287. Fort Collins, CO, 1990.
Botkin, Daniel. “Breaching the Edwards Dam: Righting an Old Wrong.” The Denver Post 29 August 1999, sec. K2.
Bownell, Bruce. “The State of Solar Power: 1998.” Mother Earth News n.164 (October-November, 1997): 50-52.
Bradley, Robert L., Jr. “Dirty Secrets of Renewable Energy.” USA Today v.126 n.2636 (May 1998): 34-37.
Cocklin, C., and S.C. Lonergan. “The Economics of Forest Energy Plantations: An Empirical Inquiry.” Economic Geography v.62 (October 1986): 354-372.
Daily, Mark. Interview. Town Talk. With Tony Todd. KBUT. Crested Butte. 30 November 1999.
Dowsett, Brigid. “Burning Issue for Biodiversity.” Habitat Australia v.26 i.2 (April 1998): 29.
Flavin, Christopher. “Clean as a Breeze.” Time v.150 n.25 (December 15, 1997): 60-63.
– -. “Harnessing the Sun and Wind.” USA Today v.124 n.2606 (November 1995): 70-74.
Frazier, Deborah. “Troubled Waters.” Denver Rocky Mountain News 27 June 1999, sec. A7.
Morss, M.F., and J.L. Small. “The Effect of Wood and Coal Stoves on Household Use of Electricity.” Land Economics v.65 n1 (February 1989): 29-38.
Quillen, Ed. “A Woodpile is Wonderful, Especially if You Don’t Use It.” The Denver Post 1 December 1998, sec. B11.
Schwab, Robert. “Y2K Smokes Out Western Devotees of Wood Stoves.” The Denver Post 17 November 1999, sec. C3.
Sedjo, Roger A. “The Economics of Forest-based Biomass Supply.” Energy Policy v.25 n.6 (1997): 559-566.
Smith, Jerd. “Brewery Runs with the Wind.” Denver Rocky Mountain News 14 November 1999, sec. G3.
United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Energy Markets and End Use. Monthly Energy Review. August 1999. Washington: GPO 1999.
