Rogan 1
John Rogan
Dr. Sayanti Ganguly-Puckett
Composition
3/21/2025
Comparing Electrical Sources
As time keeps progressing, so does humanity's need for energy. It is no understatement
that the amount of energy we can produce is one of the main limiting factors in our development
globally. The most common way we store, utilize, and transport energy today is through
electricity. Coming from hundreds of different sources and being produced through hundreds of
unique ways, electricity is comparable to blood for countries. Electricity is always in a constant
state of flow, being pumped throughout nations with a wide web of electrical connections.
The beating hearts of this system are power plants. As the core of this system, and due to the
wide variety of power plant types, understanding the economic, environmental, and the outlook
of the impact on our future is a pivotal task to improve our dwindling environment while
satiating humanity's ever-growing need for power.
This ever flowing miraculous electrical system according to Joshua Rhodes, in the United
States alone is valued at one and a half trillion dollars. A full restoration and replacement of the
systems involved could require five trillion(Rhodes, Joshua D). There are many different types
of power plants, however the most prevalent are coal, hydroelectric, nuclear, and gas. The
production output and environmental effects of the different kinds of power plants is extremely
varied. Fossil fuels are the modern age’s troubling addiction, providing us with short term highs
Rogan 2
of energy production while damaging the globe slowly. This table according to James Richards,
Piyush Sabharwall, and Matthew Memmott shows the rough estimate of the difference in
electrical production of different generation types.
Technology
Relative
Generation
Understanding the differences in the
Wind
4.7%
Solar- Photovoltaic
0.6%
Geothermal
0.4%
Hydropower
6%
can see from the table, not all energy sources are
Coal
33%
created equal, with fossil fuels accounting for
Natural Gas- Combined Cycle
32%
Natural Gas- Combustion
Turbine
1.7%
Biopower
1.6%
Light Water Reactor (LWR)
20%
power production process of each power plant
will let us see the global effect that it has. As we
over two thirds of overall production.
Understanding the environmental
pitfalls that come with energy generation is
crucial for the well being and health of everything alive. The effects of fossil fuels on the
environment and humans are extremely detrimental. During energy generation from fossil fuel
power plants, a massive amount of carbon dioxide is spewed out into the atmosphere. This
continual pumping of gas into our atmosphere over the course of many years has created an
effect called global warming. Humanity has increased the world temperature by 1.5 degrees
celsius since beginning the industrial age. The world health organization “reports that climate
change is responsible for at least 150,000 deaths per year, a number that is expected to double by
2030”(Paritosh). In a short 5 years, the current effects of power generation on our climate will
kill 300,000 people annually. While power plant workers take the brunt of the health issues,
Rogan 3
constantly being exposed to hazardous materials, the effects of the production of energy
indirectly impacts everyone. A few great examples of the effects of global warming are increased
mosquito populations, increased pollutants and pollen in the air, volatile weather changes, food
and water shortages, higher chance of wildfires, and making heat waves more common.
Understanding the ruinous effects of fossil fuel allows us to see why a great deal of scientific
minds are trying to create clean forms of energy.
All of our first industrious strides began with coal. Coal is utilized in power plants by
burning coal to turn water into steam, and the steam moves a turbine, which then spins a
generator creating power. Coal has historically been a very powerful resource, jettisoning those
who utilized it into the forefront of industry. As time progressed we came to understand the
environmental impact these plants have. Understanding the impacts, lawmakers have started to
regulate coal plants to reduce emissions. Due to the slowly increasing scarcity of coal, as well as
the now required environmentally safe design, the price of utilizing coal has skyrocketed. These
plants are costly, the ESFC investment group states a typical coal power plant setup and
operation can cost anywhere from 1.5 to 5 billion dollars. A key note to mention is that in third
world countries coal is utilized much more widely and cheaper due to the lack of regulation. The
EIA (U.S Energy Information Administration) calculates the production of electricity costs
37.06 mills (a mill is 1/1000 of one U.S cent). Coal costs much higher than the average of 20.6.
With the amount of current infrastructure as well as the 33% share of total energy usage, coal
being used as a power source isn’t going anywhere. While there has been a massive push for
utilizing renewable and clean energy sources, at the moment they cannot provide the same
amount of energy that coal can. Over time we will see coal power being slowly phased out,
Rogan 4
however in the meantime it still remains a powerhouse for maintaining the world's eclectic
economy.
Nuclear power is the newest kid on the block when it comes to power generation. A
nuclear generator utilizes highly controlled nuclear fission to turn water into steam, which then
operates a turbine generator. Nuclear power comes with very evident pros and cons. Regarding
environmental effects, it is also hit and miss. While nuclear power plants account for a reduction
in global greenhouse gas emissions by two to three percent(Muellner, Nikolaus), the process of
nuclear fission utilizes highly hazardous materials that can not be recycled. Nuclear waste
remains dangerous for thousands of years due to their radioactive nature. Nuclear waste is
typically stored underground or in areas away from the environment to keep the radioactive
impact from hurting the area around it. Another major con is the impact of a critical failure in
nuclear plants. While all power plant failures are extremely detrimental to the environment,
nuclear power plant’s meltdowns can cause international crises. When a nuclear reactor fails, the
fissile material spirals out of control and continues the process of nuclear fission indefinitely,
diffusing tons of radiation into the environment. These meltdown events are extremely rare, with
there being only three major events, those being the Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and most
recently Fukushima Daiichi. While modern nuclear plants have vastly improved in safety and
failsafe technology, the risk of a meltdown is always present. The upkeep and cost of nuclear
power plant’s production of electricity is very cost effective at only 15.64 mills according to the
U.S EIA. Another massive problem with nuclear power plants is the scarcity of the fuel source.
While some nuclear plants utilize different fuel sources, the overwhelming majority is uranium235. Uranium-235 is an extremely rare resource that is also very hard to mine and extract. It
must also be refined and prepared as a fuel source which is a time consuming process. Due to
Rogan 5
this, uranium-235 will be phased out in place of other sources roughly by 2040 (Muellner,
Nikolaus, et al). However, there are many promising alternatives to uranium-235 such as thorium
and uranium-238. These alternative sources are still in the prototyping phase and they will be
more prevalent in the coming years. Despite the dangers and lack of expansion, nuclear power
remains a great option for reducing environmental damage, as well as a suitable energy source to
be expanded upon with continuous research.
The power of running water has been used for centuries. Utilizing a current, ancient
cultures utilized a water wheel to grind flour, or generate rotational force for early machines. The
modern use of this principle are hydroelectric generators. Using running water to turn a turbine
in a generator, hydroelectricity is a very powerful tool for producing energy. The main utilization
in the modern age are hydroelectric dams. By blocking the flow of water in a river, you can
pressurize the water and push it through a generator that produces massive amounts of
consistent, and clean energy. With maintenance only as hydroelectric dams require no fuel,
maintenance accounts for only 9.18 mills(EIA). Areas surrounding the dam have extremely low
costs of power due to the natural sustainability of hydroelectric dams. Accounting for roughly
6% of the world’s energy production, hydro remains a consistently viable option for power
generation. Due to the ease of implementation into local rivers, small scale hydro electric
systems are extremely prevalent on land owners properties. While hydroelectric dams are a
leader in renewable energy, they are not immune to affecting the local environment. A critical
failure of a dam can have disastrous consequences on a local scale. The largest dam failure
occurred in Johnstown with a release of 15 to 30 million cubic meters of water killing roughly
3000 people(Arushi Arora). Outside of dam failures, they have a drastic effect on ecosystems. A
majority of vegetation and “other threatened species depend on an undisturbed river ecosystem
Rogan 6
for survival” creating poor conditions for wildlife(Arushi Arora). Overall, hydroelectric power
when implemented and maintained properly, is one of the most cost effective and
environmentally sustainable options for electrical production.
The granddaddy of all power sources and the first modern power source we have used is
natural gas. Originally used to boil water and other menial tasks, with the introduction of the
humble gas plant, we started lighting our streets with gas powered lamps. Once standardized for
street use, gas was then pumped into homes for use with ovens, lights, and heating. The original
power plants simply combusted the gas to produce rotational force for a generator. The modern
form of gas power plants are called combined cycle natural gas plants. Once combusted, the heat
generated is utilized to boil vast amounts of water to also spin the turbine at a faster rate. These
types of power plants produce an exorbitant amount of electricity making up 32% of total energy
production. However, they are some of the most costly both in regards to monetary value and
environmental impact. The total maintenance and fuel consumption of gas power plants is 48.66
mills easily doubling the average of 20.6 mills. Not only expensive in operation, the
environmental impact of gas is exorbitant. Easily the most identifiable issue is with the
generation of noxious fumes from gas combustion. This gas lowers local air quality surrounding
the plant creating health issues “including respiratory symptoms, cardiovascular disease, and
cancer” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. The setup and acquisition of gas is also
a major environmental hazard. Gas is accessed through a process called fracking. Fracking
begins with drilling into the gas rich areas and installing pipes. These pipes are then pressurized
and a large volume of chemically treated water is blasted through, which results in breaking open
of the gas pockets which is then collected by suctioning through the pipes. The chemical water
used in this process commonly contaminates the local water table, polluting drinking water for
Rogan 7
nearby communities(Denchak, Melissa). Fracking also involves millions of gallons of water,
taking away water from communities that need it. Outside of noxious fumes, as well as its
impacts on water, fracking has also been linked to earthquakes. At least half of magnitude two to
four earthquakes were in areas where fracking has occurred frequently. In modern times the
environmental impact of gas plants has been duly noticed and there are many strides in lessening
the impact of these effects. Gas power plants remain dominant both in production as well as
pollution. With the known effects of gas plants, they will be phased out over time as fossil fuels
are not a renewable source, but will be tapped dry for as long as they can.
On the whole, power plants cannot be perfect. The core values of a power plant are cost
effectiveness, environmental impact, and power output. Fossil fuels create an immense amount
of power at the cost of the environment. Being polar opposites, renewable energy sources
provide clean power, yet not nearly enough to use solely for our ravenous power consumption.
Even in finding middle ground alternatives such as nuclear power is not without problematic
nuclear waste. As time progresses, so does the technology to prevent and reduce emissions and
other forms of hazardous waste. In the coming future we can see the trend of phasing out fossil
fuels for renewable energy sources, or more environmentally sustainable options (Bazmi, et al).
As long as humans require electricity, the beating hearts known as power plants will continue to
pump out pollution and energy all the same, it is up to the collective minds of society to make a
conclusive choice on becoming sustainable.
Rogan 8
Citations
Denchak, Melissa. Fracking 101, www.nrdc.org/stories/fracking-101. Accessed 14 Apr. 2025.
Environmental Impacts of Natural Gas.” Union of Concerned Scientists,
www.ucs.org/resources/environmental-impacts-natural-gas. Accessed 14 Apr. 2025.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. “Average Power Plant Operating Expenses for Major
U.S. Investor-Owned Electric Utilities, 2013 through 2023 (Mills per Kilowatthour).” SAS
Output, www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html. Accessed 4 Apr. 2025.
“Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs.” ESFC Investment Group,
esfccompany.com/en/articles/thermal-energy/coal-fired-power-plant-constructioncosts/#:~:text=The%20cost%20of%20building%20a%20subcritical%20coal%2Dfired%20power
%20plant,an%20efficiency%20of%20around%2040%25. Accessed 3 Apr. 2025.
Lee, Alexandra S., et al. “Climate change and public health: The effects of global warming on
the risk of allergies and autoimmune diseases.” EMBO Reports, vol. 24, no. 4, 2023,
https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.20235682
Rogan 9
Yi, Hoonbok, et al. “Effects of global warming on mosquitoes & mosquito-borne diseases and
the new strategies for mosquito control.” Entomological Research, vol. 44, no. 6, 2014, pp. 215–
235, https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-5967.12084.
Kasotia, Paritosh. “The health effects of global warming.” UN Chronicle, vol. 44, no. 2, June
2007, pp. 48–49. Research Library.
Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet,
www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf. Accessed 2 Apr.
2025.
Richards, James, et al. “Economic Comparison of Current Electricity Generating Technologies
and Advanced Nuclear Options.” The Electricity Journal, vol. 30, no. 10, Dec. 2017, pp. 73–79.
ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2017.11.005.
Bazmi, Aqeel Ahmed, and Gholamreza Zahedi. “Sustainable Energy Systems: Role of
Optimization Modeling Techniques in Power Generation and Supply—A Review.” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 15, no. 8, Oct. 2011, pp. 3480–500. ScienceDirect,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.003.
Rogan 10
Tietjen, Oliver, et al. “Investment Risks in Power Generation: A Comparison of Fossil Fuel and
Renewable Energy Dominated Markets.” Energy Economics, vol. 58, Aug. 2016, pp. 174–85.
ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.07.005.
Muellner, Nikolaus, et al. “Nuclear Energy - The Solution to Climate Change?” Energy Policy,
vol. 155, Aug. 2021, p. 112363. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112363.
Stein, Richard S., and Joseph Powers. The Energy Problem. World Scientific, 2011.
Rhodes, Joshua D. “The Old, Dirty, Creaky US Electric Grid Would Cost $5 Trillion to
Replace. Where Should Infrastructure Spending Go?” Homepage, 17 Mar. 2017,
energy.utexas.edu/news/old-dirty-creaky-us-electric-grid-would-cost-5-trillion-replace-whereshouldinfrastructure#:~:text=But%20it%20is%20also%20expensive,value%20of%20the%20existing%
20grid.
Arora, Arushi. “The Environmental Impacts of Dams.” Earth.Org, 17 Jan. 2024, earth.org/damseconomic-assets-or-ecological-liabilities/.
Rogan 11