College Research

With all the news on renewable energy, most people are misinformed on how harmful they can really be. For example, the production and the running of wind turbines is having a big impact on the environment. Although wind power does not directly produce carbon dioxide (CO2), wind turbines are usually built on peat soil, which contains plentiful amounts of carbon stored. In addition, an article, written by the British journalist Andrew Gilligan, stated how turbines in Britain will create more CO2 gas than it will save (par. 3, 5-6). While the intentions to produce more wind energy are good, the results are far from anything beneficial. Still, many activists and companies still say wind energy is the least harmful source of power. Windustry stated that other forms of  power still leave pollution to water sources while wind is emission free and keep water clean (par. 15-16). On the other hand, even with wind turbines not affecting water, turbines still affects wildlife. According to articles in Opposing Viewpoints in Context, wind turbines everywhere are cutting down the population of bats and birds, which some are already endangered (Drouin par. 3), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service reported, “Wind turbines slaughter some 400,000 birds every year” (Driessien, “Wind Energy” par. 15). This might come as a shock since the killing of birds does not seem to be talked about much; however, thousands of birds and bats are being killed, while some getting closer to extinction, by wind turbines. Wind turbines do have some positive effects on the environment, but they still produce CO2 gases and is extremely harmful to bird and bat populations.

Just as wind power had harmful effects, solar power has similar problems. Unlike wind turbines, solar energy does have a direct effect to water sources. Bob Marshal is a conversation writer, and he wrote how solar power in an industrial size produce large amount of heat as a waste product by using up large amount of needed water through boiling it (par. 12). This may not sound like much with water being used up and heat being given off, but there can be many consequences that activists will look over. For example, Glenn Hamer, an executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association in Washington, D.C, is an activist of solar energy that will bring up how solar energy does not produce any real waste products into the air, and how the amount of CO2 gas it saves equals the amount of an average car would give off in a year (par. 10). Unlike wind turbines, there is no intentional or unintentional CO2 being produced but the heat given off is dangerous nevertheless. In Michael Sandoval’s article, he reported that on the solar plant in Ivanpah, which became operational in February 2014, the plant has been cooking alive birds “by heating the air to around 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit near the towers, according to reports” (par. 6). Even with the no production of CO2 gas, solar energy is as harmful as wind energy to the wildlife, especially birds. In addition, nuclear power is as dangerous as wind and solar energy.

Just like the other two, nuclear power has many negative effects that comes with it. One problem that can lead to many deaths and injury is with the actual nuclear plant. Jim Riccio reminds the public in his article that there is always the possibility that a plant can have a meltdown, just like in Japan with the Fukushima incident in 2011; this can lead to catastrophic consequences (par. 1, 3). Just as the Fukushima plant had a meltdown, any nuclear plant can have one too. In contrast, activists and companies still say that nuclear power is still a safe source of energy. The World Nuclear Association, an organization that promotes nuclear power, state in their article that before the Fukushima plant meltdown, there have been only two other incidents in 1979 and 1986; they also stated how companies spent many resources to reduce the chance of meltdowns (par. 1, 5, 8, 9). While it is true there had only been three significant disaster, but there is always a possibility of any plant to have a meltdown even if the chance is being reduced. Besides meltdowns, there are other safety hazards that comes in making nuclear energy. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NDRC) demonstrated that besides terrorist involvement, there is the high chance of plants having small amounts of radioactive leakage over a long period of time, and there are hazards in mining for Uranium, the source of nuclear power. Plus, as the NDRC also stated, “Underground repositories, meant to isolate high-level radioactive waste and spent fuel from people and the environment for thousands of years, are subject to long-term risks of leakage, poisoning the groundwater for future generations” (par. 24). Even with the chance of meltdowns reduced, there are still many long-term environmental issues with leakage in the power plants, mining hazard, and poisoning groundwater by disposing of waste. With media and activists praising renewable energy, such as wind, solar and nuclear, for being safe for the environment, they fail to mention many terrible side affects each source of energy has.