Ports Region 9 Water Us Epa - Environmental Protection Agency: Fill & Download for Free

If ever there was an environmental battle exemplifying a game of ping pong, it would be the stop-start story of the Keystone XL pipeline, also known as KXL. From the time it was proposed in 2008, through more than 10 years of dogged citizen protest and various conflicting legislative and executive orders by the federal government, the path for this controversial oil pipeline has never been smooth. Many had hoped that the disastrous project was finally done for in November 2015, when the Obama administration vetoed the pipeline—acknowledging its pervasive threats to climate, ecosystems, drinking water sources, and public health, and advancing a national commitment to decreasing our reliance on dirty energy. But immediately after taking office, President Trump reversed course and signed an executive order to advance Keystone XL (as well as the Dakota Access Pipeline). Since then, President Trump has personally issued the pipeline’s developer its long-sought cross-border permit, and his administration has attempted to grant additional permits for the project—all based on faulty environmental reviews. (environmental groups have already won two lawsuits against the Trump administration over these approvals and reviews and recently sued for a third time.)As President-elect Joe Biden prepares to enter the White House, he has signaled that cancelling Keystone XL’s permit will be a top priority. Here’s an overview of the tar sands export pipeline that’s become one of the foremost climate controversies of our time.What is Keystone XL?The Keystone XL pipeline extension, proposed by energy infrastructure company TC Energy (formerly TransCanada) in 2008, was designed to transport the planet’s dirtiest fossil fuel to market—fast. An expansion of the company’s existing Keystone Pipeline System, which has been operating since 2010 (and is already sending Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta to various processing hubs in the middle of the United States), it would dramatically increase capacity to process the 168 billion barrels of crude oil locked up under Canada’s boreal forest. To be precise, it would transport 830,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands oil per day to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas.Some 3 million miles of oil and gas pipelines already run through our country. But Keystone XL wouldn’t be your average pipeline, and tar sand oil isn’t your average crude.Beneath the wilds of northern Alberta’s boreal forest is a sludgy, sticky deposit called tar sands. These sands contain bitumen, a gooey type of petroleum that can be converted into fuel. It’s no small feat extracting oil from tar sands, and doing so comes with steep environmental and economic costs. Nevertheless, in the mid-2000s, with gas prices on the rise, oil companies ramped up production and sought additional ways to move their product from Canada’s remote tar sands fields to midwestern and Gulf Coast refineries.The Keystone XL extension actually comprises two segments. The first, a southern leg, has already been completed and runs between Cushing, Oklahoma, and Port Arthur, Texas. Opponents of this project—now called the Gulf Coast Pipeline—say that TC Energy took advantage of legal loopholes to push the pipeline through, securing a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit and dodging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) more rigorous vetting process, which requires public input. The second segment is the currently contested 1,209-mile northern leg—a shortcut of sorts—that would run from Hardisty, Alberta, through Montana and South Dakota to Steele City, Nebraska.Following a rigorous, robust analysis with substantial public engagement, the U.S. State Department, under President Barack Obama, declined to grant the northern leg of the Keystone XL project the permit required to construct, maintain, and operate the pipeline across the U.S.–Canada border. Though President Trump subsequently granted this permit and removed this particular barrier to Keystone XL’s construction, significant legal, regulatory, and economic barriers remain for the pipeline to become operational.Leaks and the pipelineTar sands oil is thicker, more acidic, and more corrosive than lighter conventional crude, and this ups the likelihood that a pipeline carrying it will leak. Indeed, one study found that between 2007 and 2010, pipelines moving tar sands oil in Midwestern states spilled three times more per mile than the U.S. national average for pipelines carrying conventional crude. Since it first went into operation in 2010, TC Energy’s original Keystone Pipeline System has leaked more than a dozen times; one incident in North Dakota sent a 60-foot, 21,000-gallon geyser of tar sands oil spewing into the air. Most recently, on October 31, 2019, the Keystone tar sands pipeline was temporarily shut down after a spill in North Dakota of reportedly more than 378,000 gallons. And the risk that Keystone XL will spill has only been heightened: A study published in early 2020, co-authored by TC Energy’s own scientists, found that the anti-corrosion coating on pipes for the project is defective from being stored outside and exposed to the elements for the last decade.Complicating matters, leaks can be difficult to detect. And when tar sands oil does spill, it’s more difficult to clean up than conventional crude because it immediately sinks to the bottom of the waterway. People and wildlife coming into contact with tar sands oil are exposed to toxic chemicals, and rivers and wetland environments are at particular risk from a spill. (For evidence, recall the 2010 tar sands oil spill in Kalamazoo, Michigan, a disaster that cost Enbridge more than a billion dollars in cleanup fees and took six years to settle in court.) Keystone XL would cross agriculturally important and environmentally sensitive areas, including hundreds of rivers, streams, aquifers, and water bodies. One is Nebraska’s Ogallala Aquifer, which provides drinking water for millions as well as 30 percent of America’s irrigation water. A spill would be devastating to the farms, ranches, and communities that depend on these crucial ecosystems.What is tar sands oil?The tar sands industry is just as hard on the cradle of its business. Its mines are a blight on Canada’s boreal, where operations dig up and flatten forests to access the oil below, destroying wildlife habitat and one of the world’s largest carbon sinks. They deplete and pollute freshwater resources, create massive ponds of toxic waste, and threaten the health and livelihood of the First Nations people who live near them. Refining the sticky black gunk produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous, coal-like by-product. What’s more, the whole process of getting the oil out and making it usable creates three to four times the carbon pollution of conventional crude extraction and processing. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” says Anthony Swift, director of NRDC’s Canada project. “It’s nasty stuff.”Keystone XL and climate changeA fully realized Keystone XL would lead to more mining of that “nasty stuff” by accelerating the pace at which it’s produced and transported. (Indeed, Keystone XL was viewed as a necessary ingredient in the oil industry’s plans to triple tar sands production by 2030.)It would also lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions. In 2014, the EPA stated that tar sands oil emits 17 percent more carbon than other types of crude, but ironically, the State Department revised this number upward three years later, stating that the emissions could be “5 percent to 20 percent higher than previously indicated.” That means burdening the planet with an extra 178.3 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, the same impact as 38.5 million passenger vehicles or 45.8 coal-fired power plants. Finally, the pipeline would undermine efforts to minimize global warming and prioritize clean energy like win Pipeline d and solar. Leading climate scientist and former NASA researcher James Hansen has warned that fully exploiting Canada’s tar sands reserves would mean “game over” for our climate. In short, tar sands oil represents no small threat to our environment, and our best stance against it, as the rallying cry goes, is to “keep it in the ground.Keystone XL ControversyOpposition to Keystone XL centers on the devastating environmental consequences of the project. The pipeline has faced years of sustained protests from environmental activists and organizations; Indigenous communities; religious leaders; and the farmers, ranchers, and business owners along its proposed route. One such protest, a historic act of civil disobedience outside the White House in August 2011, resulted in the arrest of more than 1,200 demonstrators. More than 90 leading scientists and economists have opposed the project, in addition to unions and world leaders such as the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and former president Jimmy Carter (together, these and other Nobel laureates have written letters against the project). In 2014, more than two million comments urging a rejection of the pipeline were submitted to the State Department during a 30-day public comment period.In the two years leading up to the November 2014 midterm elections, the fossil fuel industry spent more than $720 million to court allies in Congress. When industry-friendly politicians took charge of both congressional houses in January 2015, their first order of business was to pass a bill to speed up approval of Keystone XL. (That effort failed.)One of the central arguments by pipeline pushers is that tar sands expansion will move forward with or without Keystone XL. This has proved to be untrue. Dealing in tar sands oil is an expensive endeavor. It’s costly both to produce and to ship, particularly by rail, which would be an alternative to Keystone XL. Indeed, moving crude by rail to the Gulf costs twice as much as by pipe. For companies considering whether to invest in a long-lived tar sands project (which could last for 50 years), access to cheap pipeline capacity will play a major role in the decision to move forward or not. Without Keystone XL, the tar sands industry has canceled projects rather than shift to rail, subsequently leaving more of the earth’s dirtiest fuel in the ground where it belongs.Will the pipeline create jobs?The oil industry has lobbied hard to get KXL built by using false claims, political arm-twisting, and big bucks. When TC Energy said the pipeline would create nearly 119,000 jobs, a State Department report instead concluded the project would require fewer than 2,000 two-year construction jobs and that the number of jobs would hover around 35 after construction.Will the pipeline lower gas prices?Dirty energy lobbyists claimed developing tar sands would protect our national energy security and bring U.S. fuel prices down. But NRDC and its partners found the majority of Keystone XL oil would be sent to markets overseas (aided by a 2015 reversal of a ban on crude oil exports)—and could even lead to higher prices at U.S. pumps.President Trump and the Keystone XL PipelineWhen the Obama administration refused to grant the cross-border permit necessary to build TC Energy’s Keystone XL oil pipeline in November 2015, it struck a blow against polluting powers and acknowledged the consensus on this misguided project from a wide swath of people and organizations. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” President Obama said. “And, frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.” The Obama-era decision echoed a seven-year State Department review process with EPA input that concluded the pipeline would fail to serve national interests.Upon entering office, President Trump—with his pro-polluter cabinet of fossil fuel advocates, billionaires, and bankers—quickly demonstrated that his priorities differed. On his fourth day in office, Trump signed an executive order to allow Keystone XL to move forward. On March 28, 2017, his administration illegally approved a cross-border permit for the pipeline, reversing the Obama administration’s robust National Interest Determination process. When that failed—thanks to a lawsuit brought by environmental groups—President Trump reissued the cross-border permit himself. His administration has also attempted to issue other permits for the project, all based on flawed environmental analyses, prompting two more lawsuits from environmental allies.Opposition outside the courts has been swift and strong as well. Farmers, ranchers, tribes, and conservation groups have helped keep the project stalled for the past four years, ensuring it made the long list of President Trump’s failed campaign promises.President Biden and the Keystone XL PipelineEven as Trump and TC Energy tried to revive the pipeline, polls showed that a majority of Americans opposed it. The market case, even before the COVID-19 pandemic sent oil prices plummeting, has also deteriorated. Low oil prices and increasing public concern over the climate have led Shell, Exxon, Statoil, and Total to either sell their tar sands assets or write them down. Because of this growing market recognition, major new tar sands projects haven't moved forward with construction for years, despite investments from the government of Alberta, Canada. For example, in 2020, Teck Resources withdrew its ten-year application to build the largest tar sands mine in history—citing growing concern surrounding climate change in global markets.In May 2020, while campaigning in the Democratic primary for the presidential ticket, Joe Biden vowed to cancel the Keystone XL cross-border permit should he win the presidency. He is expected to make good on that promise on his first day in office, January 20, 2021.For the Keystone XL pipeline to truly be ended, the Biden administration must revoke other permits, including the Bureau of Land Management’s right-of-way permit—and prepare for the legal battles that will likely follow.“President Biden's decision to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on his first day turns the page on a twelve-year fight over the energy future of our country,” said Swift just before Biden’s inauguration. “It sets the stage for a more prosperous future powered by clean energy.”What Is the Keystone XL Pipeline?How a single pipeline project became the epicenter of an enormous environmental, public health, and civil rights battle.https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-keystone-pipelineA timeline of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline projectJuly 2008: TC Energy Corp. -- then called TransCanada Corp. -- and ConocoPhillips, joint owners of the Keystone Pipeline, propose a major extension to the network. The expansion, dubbed Keystone XL, would carry hundreds of thousands of barrels of oilsands bitumen from Alberta to Texas.2009: As the U.S. State Department wades through comments based on an environmental assessment of the project, TransCanada starts visiting landowners potentially affected by the pipeline. Opposition emerges in Nebraska.June 2009: TransCanada announces it will buy ConocoPhillips's stake in Keystone.March 2010: The National Energy Board approves TransCanada's application for Keystone XL, though the OK comes with 22 conditions regarding safety, environmental protection and landowner rights.April 2010: The U.S. State Department releases a draft environmental impact statement saying Keystone XL would have a limited effect on the environment.June-July 2010: Opposition to Keystone XL begins mounting in the United States. Legislators write to then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton calling for greater environmental oversight; scientists begin speaking out against the project; and the Environmental Protection Agency questions the need for the pipeline extension.July 2010: The State Department extends its review of Keystone, saying federal agencies need more time to weigh in before a final environmental impact assessment can be released.March 2011: The State Department announces a further delay in its environmental assessment.Aug. 26, 2011: The State Department releases its final environmental assessment, which reiterates that the pipeline would have a limited environmental impact.August-September 2011: Protesters stage a two-week campaign of civil disobedience at the White House to speak out against Keystone XL. Police arrest approximately 1,000 people, including actors Margot Kidder and Daryl Hannah as well as Canadian activist Naomi Klein.Sept. 26, 2011: At a demonstration on Parliament Hill, police arrest 117 of 400 protesters.Nov. 10, 2011: The State Department says TransCanada must reroute Keystone XL to avoid an ecologically sensitive region of Nebraska.Nov. 14, 2011: TransCanada agrees to reroute the line.December 2011: U.S. legislators pass a bill with a provision saying President Barack Obama must make a decision on the pipeline's future in the next 60 days.Jan. 18, 2012: Obama rejects Keystone, saying the timeline imposed by the December bill did not leave enough time to review the new route. Obama said TransCanada was free to submit another application.Feb. 27, 2012: TransCanada says it will build the southern leg of Keystone XL, from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf Coast, as a separate project with a price tag of $2.3 billion. This is not subject to presidential permission, since it did not cross an international border.April 18, 2012: TransCanada submits a new route to officials in Nebraska for approval.May 4, 2012: TransCanada files a new application with the State Department for the northern part of Keystone XL.Jan. 22, 2013: Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman approves TransCanada's proposed new route for Keystone XL, sending the project back to the State Department for review.January 2013: Pipeline opponents file a lawsuit against the Nebraska government claiming the state law used to review the new route is unconstitutional.Jan. 31, 2014: The State Department says in a report that Keystone XL would produce fewer greenhouse gas emissions than transporting oil to the Gulf of Mexico by rail.Feb. 19, 2014: A Nebraska judge rules that the law that allowed the governor to approve Keystone XL over the objections of landowners was unconstitutional. Nebraska said it would appeal.April 18, 2014: The State Department suspends the regulatory process indefinitely, citing uncertainty about the court case in Nebraska.Nov. 4, 2014: TransCanada says the costs of Keystone XL have grown to US$8 billion from US$5.4 billion.November-December 2014: Midterm elections turn control of the U.S. Congress over to Republicans, who say they'll make acceptance of Keystone XL a top priority. But Obama adopts an increasingly negative tone.Jan. 9, 2015: At the Nebraska Supreme Court, by the narrowest of margins, a panel of seven judges strikes down the lower-court decision.Jan. 29, 2015: The U.S. Senate approves a bill to build Keystone XL, but the White House says Obama would veto it.Feb. 24, 2015: Obama vetoes the bill.June 30, 2015: TransCanada writes to then-secretary of state John Kerry and other U.S. officials saying the State Department should include recent climate change policy announcements by the Alberta and federal governments in its review of Keystone XL.Nov. 2, 2015: TransCanada asks the U.S. government to temporarily suspend its application.Nov. 4, 2015: The U.S. government rejects that request.Nov. 6, 2015: The Obama administration rejects TransCanada's application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. TransCanada CEO Russ Girling says he is disappointed, but continues to believe the project is in the best interests of both Canada and the U.S.Jan. 6, 2016: TransCanada files notice to launch a claim under Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, alleging the U.S. government breached its legal commitments under NAFTA. The company also files a lawsuit in U.S. Federal Court in Texas arguing that Obama exceeded his powers by denying construction of the project.May 26, 2016: Republican presidential contender Donald Trump says he would approve Keystone XL if elected, a pledge he repeats several times during the campaign.Nov. 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.Jan. 24, 2017: Trump signs an executive order that he says approves Keystone XL, but suggests the United States intends to renegotiate the terms of the project. He also signs an order requiring American pipelines to be built with U.S. steel.Nov. 9, 2018: A U.S. federal judge blocks the pipeline's construction to allow more time to study the potential environmental impact.March 29, 2019: Trump issues a new presidential permit in an effort to speed up development of the pipelineMay 3, 2019: TransCanada changes its name to TC Energy.March 31, 2020: Alberta agrees to invest $1.5 billion in Keystone XL, followed by a $6 billion loan guarantee in 2021.April 7, 2020: Construction begins, despite calls from Indigenous groups and environmentalists to pause their efforts.May 18, 2020: Joe Biden, then the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, vows to scrap Keystone XL if elected, but doesn't set out a timeline for doing so.Nov. 3, 2020: Biden is elected president.Jan. 17, 2021: Transition documents show Biden plans to cancel Keystone XL on the first day of his presidency.A timeline of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline projectHere's a chronological look at the key dates in the history of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/business/2021/1/18/1_5271188.htmlAs we now know, President Biden actually did cancel KXLs permits in his first week in office.To date only 1.2 miles of the pipeline have been built in the US state of Montana, next to the US/Canadian border. The US state of Nebraska still has never approved the project.

The cop-out answer is:It takes a diverse energy generation portfolio with a variety of strengths and weaknesses to properly provide safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally-friendly power in the 21st century.California Independent System Operator (CAISO) Control Room.[1] In the US, an ISO coordinates and monitors the flow of electricity in the American electrical grid.[2]However, since that answer is boring, how about I just run through a list of generation sources and you can decide for yourself which one you like the best. If I miss a type, you can tell me and I will add it later after doing some research.Anyways, there will have to be some standards to measure each generation source by, just to keep everything organized. However, there will be some unavoidable overlap of details within each standard; it is hard to break down everything in electrical power into discreet sections:Public perception - Because it doesn’t matter if you could generate 1 terawatt of energy by brutally sacrificing puppies to Cthulhu, the public would (rightly) make you knock it off.Abundance/Location - Please do not install wind turbines in a cave or solar panels in a forest.Reliability - People complain when they flick a switch and the lights won’t come on.Human Safety - People complain when they flick a switch and someone, somewhere gets electrocuted.Environmentally friendly - No point generating power if it leads to the eventual extinction of the human race, right?Price - The most important factor; money talks and that adage has always been true in the electric power industry[3][4]Please excuse my bias towards US and more specifically, Californian energy policy, it is just what I know best.A ton of people get paid a lot of money to make sure all these function and work together.[5]SolarPublic Perception (solar) -The public love solar energy right now. It is a hot commodity, directly using the ultimate source of most energy on Earth (except geothermal). Solar energy does not suffer fuel price volatility, like fossil fuels. Voicing support for solar energy is definitely a win-win-win for the public, the power industry, and government. Thanks, Sol.Abundance/Location (solar) -The sun shines pretty much everywhere and with a lot of intensity. Collecting all the sunlight striking Texas in one day is 300 times more energy than all the world’s power plants daily output.[6]Here is a map of where the sun generally shines.[7]Though you will not be maximizing your generation, it is possible to install solar panels everywhere from suburbia, the desert, the ocean, cities, Mars, etc.Reliability (solar) -Solar panels leave much to be desired here. Although there are no problems when the sun is shining brightly at a 90 degree angle, the panel quickly lose efficiency when even a cloud passes by momentarily.[8] Known as intermittency, the varying output of solar energy throughout the course of the day greatly complicates a utility’s ability to dispatch the correct amount of power at the correct time.[9]Solar generates more power in the summer, less in the summer (in the UK), but its output is not consistent throughout the course of the day and that can cause problems.[10]Except in rare cases, the energy consumed must match the energy being generated at any one time. Failure to properly balance this could cause voltage fluctuations or even blackouts in extreme cases.This is not a huge issue in a grid with many resources (other than creating grumbling from senior engineers who prefer more predictable energy sources). However, relying too much on intermittent power sources could leave entire communities without power in case of prolonged weather disturbances.[11]Human Safety (solar) -Since it is has no moving parts, a solar panel just sits there and collects energy when applicable. This is definitely a strong point of solar.[12]Unless a panel falls on someone while they are trying to install it, solar energy does not require any unique precautions that differ from electric devices in general.[13]Environmentally friendly (solar) -This is a wash, but solar is probably slightly worse for the environment. On one hand, solar panels require standard electrical maintenance like keeping them clean, checking there is no exposed components, etc. The lack of moving parts could even increase potential lifespan and limit the amount of time a panel needs to be taken out for overhaul/maintenance.On the other hand, solar panels require the usage of several rare-earth metals, which are contaminating soil and water, often in developing countries and China.[14]A rare-earth metal open pit mine.[15]These heavy metals are also extremely hazardous to human health and this must be considered when determining how “environmentally friendly” solar energy really is, especially when factoring in logistics, transportation, and other polluting tasks necessary to create even a single panel.[16]For concentrated solar plants, the focused mirror beams have been known to singe the wings of birds, causing them to crash to the ground and die.[17] Not the publicity utilities were looking for.The intense, focused heat created by the hundreds of thousands of mirrors at Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System is more than enough to burn the wings of this deceased bird.[18]Price (solar) -The conclusion to this one is highly controversial and subject to immense debate. Due to a combination of popular demand, several generous government subsidies, and support from high-profile individuals, solar energy is ushering in a new era in electrical generation.[19][20][21][22] Now, customers can participate by installing solar panels, helping to save the environment and getting some money back by selling unused generated energy to the utility.[23]Make no mistake, many customers are getting a very good deal for installing solar paneling; that fact is not in dispute.[24] However, there is a cost to be borne and a fundamental truth that must be realized - Even if you produce the majority of your energy from solar, you still need energy THROUGHOUT the course of a day, even when the sun is not shining!I do not want to be the homeowner without a solar panel here. My electricity rate would be nuts.This means the electric utility MUST maintain your solar-paneled home’s connection to the grid at all times. Since you are probably taking a deduction on your electric bill for your panels, the cost of maintaining the overall electric grid will be passed on to everyone else in the utility’s territory who does not have solar paneling. The more people install solar panels on their roofs, the fewer people are paying for the electric grid’s upkeep. If your electric utility is trying to weasel out of paying you for your solar energy, this issue could be a significant factor.Incidentally, this is a contributing factor for why many low income neighborhoods are wary of solar. Since wealthier people often use more electricity and can afford solar panels, they have a much greater incentive to install solar panels. This often leaves surrounding less well-off communities responsible for financing the maintenance of the entire grid.WindPublic Perception (wind) -Wind energy is in the same field of popularity as solar energy, as it also does not suffer from fuel price volatility. Often touted as a renewable energy that will usher in the future, the wind turbine industry has seen remarkable growth over the years.[25]Yet, while the public appears to like it in the abstract, wind often meets fierce criticism from locals when they actually begin appearing in their communities.[26] Common complaints of turbines include their perceived ugliness, a host of adverse human health impacts, bird strikes, etc.[27] The pervasive “not-in-my-backyard” (NIMBY) opposition to wind energy greatly impacts its actual implementation.[28]Protest against wind turbines in Bishopton, Scotland.[29]Abundance/Location (wind) -While wind can be found on most parts of the planet, only the few locations that are both high in wind quality and sparsely populated are the best regions to put wind energy.Map of wind speed in the US.[30] Coincidentally, the region of the Midwest best suited for wind turbines maps quite well onto Tornado Alley.[31] Go figure.Nevertheless, offshore wind power seems to also be a viable alternative to this dilemma (wind turbines in the ocean could be made much bigger and therefore, could be more economical).Solving a few logistics and maintenance hurdles could make this type of wind energy highly appealing.[32]Reliability (wind) -Similarly to solar energy, wind energy suffers from intermittency.[33] The wind is not blowing at all times of the day and like solar, relying too much on these power sources could cause power shortages if the proper backup procedures are not being used.[34]If this is your only source of energy, you better hope everybody turns off their power on the 28th.[35]Human Safety (wind) -Wind energy is generally safe. Other than normal precautions of dealing with live electric components and falling from the towers, there are no unique dangers posed by wind turbines.[36]Environmentally friendly (wind) -Overall, wind turbines are reasonably environmentally friendly. While their production does involve some rare earth metal, like solar, they produce far less pollution than fossil fuel generation. Turbines do produce noise pollution from their mechanical movement, giving some people a reason to blame health concerns on the turbines, though medical data and studies has so far failed to prove any sort of positive correlation.[37]Perhaps the most controversial issue for wind is the concern over bird and bat mortality rates.[38] While the majority of deaths are far below what would impact most animal populations, a whole host of redesigns and activities are considered to help fauna safely avoid wind turbines.[39]Price (wind) -About 75% of the costs of a wind turbine come from initial construction and materials. Once in operation, wind can be a viable source of energy, though the issue of intermittency, political considerations, and outdated regulations continue to hamper a fully effective roll-out.[40][41]NuclearPublic Perception (nuclear) -In case you do not already know, the general public absolutely despises nuclear energy. Popular culture, fear-mongering, and the presence of heavy government bureaucracy has created the perfect storm against the further development or implementation of nuclear energy in many countries.News about meltdowns, leaks of radioactive materials, and reports of mismanagement quickly become the headlines around the world and thus, many people probably consider living near a nuclear generating station to living near a bomb.German, Luxembourger and French antinuclear activists protest Saturday against Cattenom, France’s nuclear power plant near the border of all three nations.[42]Nuclear energy generation has no future in my home state of California, which is grave disappointment to one of the most convenient energy sources currently available to mankind.Effects of Closing San Onofre Nuclear Generating StationRegulators vote to shut down Diablo Canyon, California's last nuclear power plantAbundance/Location (nuclear) -Uranium and other radioactive fuels can only be mined and extracted in a few countries; given their critical importance, such mines are often heavily regulated and monitored by the respective national government.[43][44]Warning signs are displayed near Uranium One and Anfield's "Shootaring Canyon Uranium Mill" facility sits outside Ticaboo, Utah, U.S.[45]On the other hand, nuclear power plants are only limited by the design considerations of the area, with a wide variety of resources, support capabilities, and technical knowledge available to ensure the smooth functioning and regulatory compliance of any nuclear facility on any part of the Earth.[46][47][48]Nuclear generating stations in the US.[49]Nuclear generating stations are built to be robust stations, but in general, having a source of water to continually cool the plant or being in seismically inactive areas are great advantages.Reliability (nuclear) -Power planners love nukes. The generate a consistent amount of power, all day, every day.[50] You can almost guarantee their production, opening up a variety of ideas to help optimize and capitalize on their reliability.[51]As can be seen, most US nuclear facilities are run near their full potential as technology and safety controls improve. This optimizes the amount of energy that can be extracted out of a relatively small amount of fuel.[52]Human Safety (nuclear) -Contrary to popular belief, nuclear generating stations are some of the safest generating sources for electricity. However, the spent radioactive fuel is something we have to take care of (rather than just tossing into the water or expelling in the air; out of sight, out of mind, right?).[53]Thus, many people feel they are acutely aware of the dangers posed by nukes. Yet, even accounting for the numbers of each kind of generation source, nuclear energy kills remarkably few people compared to other kinds of energy, even accounting for famous events like Fukushima or the ineffective early response of the Soviets during Chernobyl.[54][55]Fossil fuels are far deadlier than nuclear powerIn the United States, both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are just some of the major stakeholders assuring the safe operation of nuclear plants in the country.[56]There is the constant worry of sabotage or terrorism, but honestly, attacking a nuclear generating station is one of the stupidest things a human could attempt to do in their lives.[57]In California, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is right next to the US Marine Corps’ Camp Pendleton. Only the best and most capable Marines got to become the guards to the nuclear facility. The men and women who guard these locations are not to be trifled with. They will shoot to kill.In the United States, only the most competent and stable people even get to be near the first fence of a nuclear generating station. They undergo background investigations (not just checks), psychological examinations, obtain security clearance, and are regularly tested and interviewed.[58] Moreover, the security forces that guard the transports of nuclear fuel and their facilities are at a minimum, the elites of their peers.[59]Why yes, the Department of Energy does have a special forces unit. And they get some of the best equipment America can provide too.[60]Heavily-armed, constantly drilled, and always alert, these “security guards” can count on the support of every ABC governmental agency you can think of.[61][62] Tangling with them will only result in a gunshot wound to the head and the entire facility locked down.Japan Coast Guard personnel take part in a drill at the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant.[63]Environmentally friendly (nuclear) -Though this may be a controversial position, but nuclear energy is an extremely clean energy generation source. Other than the important need to deal with the spent fuel, the only emissions from nuclear energy is due to the extraction and transportation of the fuel.[64] And that is it.[65]In fact, coal releases more toxic radioactive elements than nuclear energy.[66] [67] But since the radioactive elements from coal-burning plants are released into the atmosphere, it is harder to attribute their effects than nukes, where every atom of radioactive material is accounted for.Price (nuclear) -Obviously, all this specialization is not cheap and nuclear generating stations have high initial costs to build and develop.[68] However, once they are built, their operating costs make them competitive with most other generation sources and extremely viable for creating a more cost-effective and greener future.[69] Replacing a nuclear power plant represents the loss of a huge amount of clean, efficient energy.Nuclear Energy | Center for Climate and Energy SolutionsCoalPublic Perception (coal) -The Navajo Generating Station is coal-fired power plant in Arizona, just outside the Grand Canyon National Park.[70]Coal is divisive. People either want it banned completely or they want to burn, baby, burn.[71][72] Popular culture vilifies coal as being a huge greenhouse gas producer, along with a giant dose of human suffering and cruelty added to the mix.[73][74][75]This perception, while not wrong, does leave out the huge advancements that were solely possible due to the extraction and utilization of coal such as the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution (start of our modern, world economy).[76] In fact, one of the reasons the United States sought to force Japan from its self-imposed isolation in 1853 was to open up Japanese ports as potential coaling stations for the merchant ships of the burgeoning global trade routes.[77]Coal transformed Western society, replacing wood, whale oil, and giving humanity access to the first truly abundant energy source.[78]Suffice to say, coal has done much for human advancement through the ages. However, the danger it poses to humanity and the Earth has turned many people against its continued usage as a primary source of energy generation. Its barbaric practices of the past like child labor, a callous disregard for human life, and corporate greed/incompetence continue to cast a long shadow over the industry.Child coal miners in the UK.[79]Demonstration by the Pakistan Central Mines Labour Federation in Quetta, Pakistan on 23 October 2017 against mining deaths.[80]Abundance/Location (coal) -Coal can be found on every continent and can burn with even minor preparation.[81] A coal-fired power plant can be built in many locations, requiring no special preparation of the land other than the usual geological study and logistical concerns of transporting coal to the area.[82]This high abundance and ease of use has made coal a significant part of the electrical generation business.[83] The US produces over 1 billion tons of coal a year, making coal a substantial part of the nation’s energy generation portfolio.[84]Location of the major occurrences of coal on Earth.[85]Reliability (coal) -Coal-fired power plants work as long as they have coal in the hopper. As such, their generation capability is flexible, allowing energy planners to use such stations as baseload and provide the same amount of power day in and day out. As engineers can be rather conservative when it comes to things that deliver consistent results, many engineers still look favorably upon the reliability of coal in maintaining the electric grid.This graph seems to indicate that despite being less numerous, coal is able to outproduce natural gas electrical production.[86]Human Safety (coal) -Coal has a very bad safety record.Whether from the numerous mining accidents throughout history to the pollution emitted by its combustion, coal continues to kill people at unacceptable rates. Coal has, by far, sickened and/or killed more people than any other energy source mentioned here. According to U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (mining is so dangerous, it has its own governmental agency to regulate the industry) statistics, coal mining has killed approximately 104,000 American workers since data collection began in 1900.[87]Negative health issues related to coal include: respiratory illness (asthma, chronic bronchitis, reduction in life expectancy, heart failure/cardiovascular illnesses, several forms of cancer, heavy metal poisoning, damage to nervous system and cognitive faculties, the infamous “black lung,” etc.[88][89]Chinese residents wear masks for protection as smoke billows from a coal fired power plant in Shanxi, China.[90]This interactive map allows you to see the impact of coal on your neighborhood.[91]Environmentally friendly (coal) -Coal is not environmentally friendly. Everything from its mining, preparation, transportation, combustion, and byproducts are extremely harmful to the environment and each stage has caused numerous disasters throughout the world.[92]Unlike nuclear energy generation, where every nut and bolt is tightly regulated and watched, the massive scale of coal precludes any such attempt to exert such tight control over the industry. Thus, coal accidents happen regularly and frequently, if not in the United States, then in other countries with much more lax rules.Coal miners return on a buggy after working a shift underground at the Perkins Branch Coal Mine in Cumberland, Ky.[93]To start off, depending on the type of coal extraction method used, the environment could be reduced to the strip mine, though companies often pledge to rehabilitate the land once the resources there are spent.[94] Nevertheless, the runoff produced in the course of mining or even after a site has been abandoned can leach into the ground and create major hazards to the local people and environment. Heavy metals could enter the groundwater, contaminating the water supply, make crops unfit for human consumption, and a whole host of maladies that entail expensive clean-up.[95]Hewett Fork near Carbondale, Ohio, suffers from a legacy of acid mine drainage from coal operations.[96]Though coal is the primary cargo of most trains in America, the year has barely begun, but there have already been a number of coal train derailments, each one entailing human casualties and expensive clean-up.[97][98][99]BNSF Coal Train Derailment at Hudson, COEven the ash leftover from burning must be stored properly, lest they overcome their storage areas and force the abandonment of the locale and another expensive clean-up.[100]Home in Harriman, Tenn. flooded with fly ash sludge on Monday after a storage pond wall broke.[101]Obviously, there is much, much more one can write about the impact of coal, but we must move on.[102]Cleaner Power Plants | US EPAPrice (coal) -Even calls for “clean” coal and innovation to reuse coal could be too little, too late.[103] Coal is losing the fight to stay relevant in a world with many more options for energy generation; most other sources do not have the same baggage as coal.[104][105][106][107]HydroelectricPublic Perception (hydroelectric) -Hoover Dam, only 30 miles south of Las Vegas, Nevada.[108] More than half of its generation is used to feed Southern California, making this hydroelectric plant an integral part of the region’s power supply.[109]Hydroelectric does not have a bad reputation among the public at large. As the largest producer of renewable energy in the United States, hydroelectric is responsible for 8% of the total amount of electricity generated, far above solar, wind, and other clean sources.[110]Since hydroelectric is often located far from populated areas and are often huge national undertakings, local resistance to hydroelectric can be more sparse than for wind or solar. Moreover, the creation of the reservoir can entail the encouragement of recreational facilities or other contributions to public enrichment, often sweetening the deal for civilians.Hydropower certainly seems to check a lot of boxes for Americans.[111]Abundance/Location (hydroelectric) -Since gravitational potential energy will translate to electrical power, hydroelectric dams are best built near waterfalls or else where the terrain allows for the creation of a reservoir.[112] Having seasonal rains to regularly recharge the water is also extremely important. The sustained drought in California greatly worried many engineers and planners as the water levels sunk to record lows and adversely affected operations.[113]This aerial view shows the water levels at Folsom Dam and Lake in Sacramento County. Photo taken January 16, 2014.[114]Reliability (hydroelectric) -To increase the amount of electricity generated, an engineer can just increase the flow of water. Thus, hydro plants can quickly go from cold start to full load in an extremely short amount of time.[115] This allows hydroelectric to serve as either baseload and provide a consistent amount of power or serve as peaker plants, storing energy in its reservoir and can withhold or release the water as the situation calls for it.[116]Dinorig Power Station in Wales.[117] Dinorig is a part of the generation sources designed to handle “TV pickup,” mass surges in UK electrical demand, often tied to the commercial breaks of popular shows or events (football games, TV shows, etc.).[118][119]Human Safety (hydroelectric) -The monumental scale of hydroelectric power means that safety violations of heavy machinery, electrical equipment, etc. can crop up quite frequently.[120] However, in normal operations, hydro is completely safe, as it produces few emissions and does not threaten human life.However, when located improperly or mismanaged, hydroelectric dams can cause damage on unimaginable scales, permanently uproot communities who live upstream in the path of the reservoir, wiping out communities downstream during floods, exacerbating seismic activity, etc.[121][122]Former residents of Fengjie watch as part of their town is demolished in November 2002 to make way for the Three Gorges Dam hydropower project on the Yangtze river.[123]Aerial view of Lake Delhi Dam breach, 2010.[124]Environmentally friendly (hydroelectric) -Hydroelectric is environmentally friendly, as it uses the flow of water to generate power and subsequently produces few emissions.[125] However, its very presence chances the land and if done incorrectly, could upset the balance of the natural ecosystem. This can include the destruction of forests, grasslands, and other habitats that cannot withstand the immense amount of change foisted upon it.[126] Subsequently, this can pose challenges to biological life and traditional migration routes for animals, but especially fish. This necessitates the need for fish ladders or other workarounds to help the environment cope with the presence of a hydroelectric dam.A fish ladder on a dam.[127]In California, a distinction is made between “small” hydro and “large” hydro. Plants with less than 30 MW capacity is considered “small” and considered a renewable energy resource. Anything larger is classified as “large” and subject to some restrictions and other measures to curtail their impact on the environment.[128]Price (hydroelectric) -Hydroelectric power is quite cheap. Water costs next to nothing if the dam is located correctly. No other renewable energy resource comes close to the penetration of hydroelectric power in world generation, while the cost-effectiveness of hydro makes puts it far ahead of more conventional sources like fossil fuels or nukes.[129]ConclusionThus, that is a very brief dive into some of the of energy sources. If there are any more you would like me to add, then just let me know. But, I hope this loooong post gives you a better idea of some of the considerations that go into what kind of energy sources are used and their effectiveness.Ultimately, each nation and each community will need to decide for themselves what kind of generation sources work for them and pursue those. The power engineers of the world will work with what is chosen towards the ideal goal: to produce safe, reliable, affordable, and environmentally-friendly power to their societies and power our modern way of life.Thank you for reading. All mistakes are my own.Footnotes[1] California ISO - News[2] Regional transmission organization (North America) - Wikipedia[3] War of the currents - Wikipedia[4] California electricity crisis - Wikipedia[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)[6] The Sun's Energy[7] The Equal Earth Map Projection[8] https://www.teachengineering.org/content/cub_/lessons/cub_pveff/Attachments/cub_pveff_lesson01_fundamentalsarticle_v2_tedl_dwc.pdf[9] Renewable Intermittency Is Real[10] Challenges for the National Grid - intermittency and capacity[11] Germany shows how shifting to renewable energy can backfire[12] Are Solar Panels Safe?[13] Occupational Safety and Health Administration[14] Toxicological Evaluations of Rare Earths and Their Health Impacts to Workers: A Literature Review[15] China Proves Rare Earth Minerals are the new Oil[16] The dark side of renewable energy[17] This Mojave Desert solar plant kills 6,000 birds a year. Here's why that won't change any time soon[18] The world's largest solar plant is killing birds melting them with heat[19] Polling Data: Support for Solar | SEIA[20] Solar [21] The Economics Of Solar Power[22] 20 celebrities that have chosen to go solar - Behind Energy[23] Economics of Home Solar Energy - Solar Action Alliance[24] Do Solar Panels Work at Night or On Cloudy Days? | EnergySage[25] Map: Projected Growth of the Wind Industry From Now Until 2050[26] RENEWABLE ENERGY: What makes people dislike wind? It's not NIMBY[27] Adverse health effects of industrial wind turbines[28] http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/faculty/smith/wind.pdf[29] Bishopton villagers in wind turbines protest[30] Where Wind Power Is Harnessed[31] National Climatic Data Center[32] Top 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Offshore Wind Energy [33] Wind Power's Intermittency Problem[34] Managing Wind And Solar Intermittency In Current And Future Systems[35] Wind power intermittency is highly correlated – nuclear is not[36] Occupational Safety and Health Administration[37] Environmental Impacts of Wind Power[38] Wind Energy Development Environmental Concerns[39] Environmental Impacts and Siting of Wind Projects[40] http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/files/library/publications/reports/Economics_of_Wind_Energy.pdf[41] The Crazy Economics of the Wind Industry in Two Charts[42] France offers nuclear-plant tours to woo public[43] Uranium Mining Overview[44] How is it Mined?[45] Before the U.S. approves new uranium mining, consider its toxic legacy[46] Design of nuclear power plants[47] Nuclear Power Plant Design and Seismic Safety Considerations [May 2, 2011][48] Nuclear Reactor Technology - World Nuclear Association[49] Nuclear Power in the USA[50] Nuclear Power is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close[51] Advantages[52] Nuclear Energy Institute : US Nuclear Plants Set Reliability Record in 2015[53] Radioactive contaminants found in coal ash[54] How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources[55] Deaths from Nuclear Energy Compared with Other Causes[56] Occupational Safety and Health Administration[57] Security[58] Frequently Asked Questions About Access Authorization[59] Office of Secure Transportation[60] Federal Protective Forces - Wikipedia[61] Frequently Asked Questions About Security Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants[62] Nuclear Power Plant Security and Access Control[63] Fukushima Ii Nuclear Power Plant Pictures and Photos[64] Benefits and Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy[65] Nuclear Energy | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions[66] Natural Radiation in Wastes From Coal-Fired Power Plants[67] Coal Ash Is More Radioactive Than Nuclear Waste[68] Nuclear Energy Costs - World Nuclear Association[69] Economics of Nuclear Power as an Energy Source[70] California’s Dirty Secret: The Five Coal Plants Supplying Our Electricity[71] Coal and Air Pollution[72] Burn More Coal[73] US Mine Disasters Fast Facts[74] Coal Mine Company Denies Responsibility Despite Disaster Settlement[75] Child Labor in the Coal Mines of England[76] Coal Mines in the Industrial Revolution - History Learning Site[77] Brief Summary of the Perry Expedition to Japan, 1853[78] How the Demand for Coal Impacted the Industrial Revolution[79] Coal Miners Faced Brutal Conditions During the Industrial Revolution[80] Death, destruction and destitution in Pakistan’s coal mines[81] Pros of Coal - Abundance and Cheapness Biggest Advantages of Coal[82] Site Selection for Thermal Power Plants[83] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Elem_Coal_Studyguide.pdf[84] Quick Facts about Coal and its Benefits[85] Coal | Facts, Uses, & Types[86] A Test of Prudence Favors Coal -- Part One[87] Coal Mining Fatality Statistics: 1900-2013[88] Health effects of coal[89] black lung[90] China is massively betting on coal outside its borders — even as investment falls globally[91] Toll From Coal[92] https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/Elem_Coal_Studyguide.pdf[93] Coal mining deaths surge in 2017 after hitting record low[94] Coal mining & the environment[95] Abandoned Mine Drainage | US EPA[96] Coal mining cleanup in Ohio waterway showing mixed results[97] 40 coal train cars derail east of Bozeman[98] Coal Train Derails In Northeast Minnesota[99] Cleanup underway after Keokuk train derailment[100] Coal and Water Pollution[101] Coal Ash Spill Revives Issue of Its Hazards[102] Google Scholar[103] Climate-Friendly Coal Technology Works But Is Proving Difficult To Scale Up[104] The withering of the American coal industry[105] As China Moves To Other Energy Sources, Its Coal Region Struggles To Adapt[106] As Coal Jobs Fade, A Mining County Struggles To Redefine Itself[107] Town That Helped Power Northwest Feels Left Behind In Shift Away From Coal[108] Hoover Dam[109] Bureau of Reclamation: Lower Colorado Region[110] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-think-hydropower/[111] Broad Public Support - National Hydropower Association[112] Hydropower[113] Hydroelectric Power in California[114] How droughts boost air pollution[115] Combined Hydroelectric Pumped Storage and Nuclear Power Generation[116] Top 10 Things You Didn't Know about Hydropower[117] Dinorwig: A unique power plant in the north of Wales[118] Tea time in Britain causes predictable, massive surge in electricity demand - Geek.com[119] https://web.archive.org/web/20100207095914/http://nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/49736B61-06E4-4241-AF0B-8E7D84053AF7/1227/Nick_Easton_A_day_In_The_Life_Of_.pdf[120] Occupational Safety and Health Administration[121] Dam failure - Wikipedia[122] IN PICTURES: The Vajont Dam disaster, Italy's deadly tsunami[123] Hydropower must win hearts and minds in local communities | Lou Del Bello[124] High and significant hazard dams should be designed to pass an appropriate design flood. Dams constructed prior to the availability of extreme rainfall data should be assessed to make sure they have adequate spillway capacity. | Lessons Learned | ASDSO Lessons Learned[125] Benefits of Hydropower[126] http://www.worldwatch.org/node/9527[127] It’s a Hard Enough Life for Fish Raritan River Expansion for Anadromous Fish[128] California Hydroelectric Statistics & Data[129] Facts About Hydropower