Gek1522 Essay

Ever since the advent of industrialization, there has been an annex in the run of several greenho utilise gases (GHG) mainly collectible to the burning of fogy fuels. Carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of global thaw of GHG emission, as comp ared with 57% in the 1980s (Lashof & Ahuja, 1990). Panwar, Kaushik & Kothari (2011) overly states that excessive fossil fuel consumption result have adverse impacts on the environment, and cast up threat of global climate change. Fortunately, more and more countries are beginning to be aware of climate change, which gets as a result of the increase of emission of GHG.Therefore, various ends to issue emission of GHG have been drawn up to suggest likely settlements to reduce the impact of climate change. While in all told of these propositions are useful to reduce emission of GHG, some will be more practical and utile receivable to other problems, which may arise. whiz of these proposals includes developing more non-polluti ng renewable readiness sources (reticuloendothelial system). This is a practical air to reduce the impact of climate change as it directly reduces GHG emissions. Currently, reticuloendothelial system supply 14% of the total world cleverness demand (Panwar et. l. , 2011). RES includes biomass, hydro spring, geothermal, solar, wind and marine energies. By harnessing vim from RES, dependence on accomplished energy sources that produce GHG will be reduced. For example, solar energy is the just around abundant RES and is available as both direct and corroborative skeletal system. Solar energy hatful be apply directly in solar thermal applications, or indirectly in photovoltaic systems to vex electricity. Carbon dioxide (CO2) emission mitigation potential from 1. kWp solar pump is about 2085kg from diesel-operated pumps (Panwar et. al. , 2011). Therefore, by using RES, we can directly reduce the GHG emissions by pitiful away from energy sources that produce GHG. This is also t he most practical ascendant as RES are readily available and abundant all around us. What needs to be done is to build the infrastructure postulate to harness RES so we can become less dependent on GHG-producing energy sources and consequently reduce GHG emissions. Another such proposal involves re-afforestation to soak up more CO2.Reforestation is the next most effective solution as it also deals with removing CO2 emissions directly from the atmosphere. Trees have the super spot to absorb CO2 and convert it to stable carbon dims in the form of biomass stored in trunks, branches and organic matter in the soils (Moulton & Andrasko, 1990). This carbon sequestration is principal(prenominal) as it removes CO2 in the atmosphere and locks it in wood that can be used for furniture and other construction applications. In addition, re-afforestation offers an opportunity for emission control investments (Niskanen, 1997).However, it may not be as practical as developing more non-pollu ting RES as reforestation get hold ofs a large area of land and not many countries will be willing to give up land space, which could potentially deal economic benefit. Also, reforestation efforts are expensive. According to Moulton and Andrasko (1990), a budget of $65 million is proposed in the USA for the Presidents proposed tree-planting initiative. This huge come up coupled with limited economic benefits the country will gain from reforestation may deter governments from supporting the proposal.Thus, while reforestation provides a sink for CO2, it may not be a practical solution receivable to economic and land concerns. regimens must be able to prioritise the dour-term environmental benefits involved to make better decisions. The next proposal involves trim back energy use by conservation. By reducing energy use by conservation, the global energy demand will be reduced, and thus less non-renewable energy sources will be burnt at power plants, reducing GHG emissions. Thi s is another possible solution to reduce GHG emissions.For example, this can come by using solid-state lighting instead of incandescent bulbs. Government agencies have introduced policies to conserve energy usage through more effective use of energy (Sen, Khazanov & Kishimoto, 2011). Incandescent light bulbs typically convert 5% of energy into visible light. Solid-state light-emitting semiconductors promise to offer conversion efficiencies of 50% or more (Sen et. al. , 2011). However, the success of this solution is dependent on the joint mindset of the community on a global scale.This will require time and education to encourage reduced energy use through conservation. In addition, with an increasing number of countries becoming more affluent, the global energy demand will increase. Therefore, reduction of energy use by conservation is limited to the affluence of the country, and research can then be used to develop more efficient technology to reduce energy use. This is harder t o achieve, as it is more difficult to develop a culture to conserve energy, than to exchange governments on reforestation.The next proposal involves adding more nuclear power plants to switch over current customary coal-burning power plants. nuclear energy provides carbon acquit production of electrical energy, and produces much more energy than conventional energy sources (Grandin, Jagers & Kullander, 2010). One uranium fuel pellet contains the same amount of energy as 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil (Palliser, 2012). Thus, much more energy can be generated from a small amount of nuclear source. Nuclear waste is small in physical size compared to waste produced by other forms of energy (Palliser, 2012).While this provides a clean source of energy and reduces the emission of GHG, it may not be the most practical idea due to the concerns of radioactivity. Nuclear waste has to be stored in marque-lined, concrete vaults filled with irrigate or in aboveground steel or s teel-reinforced concrete containers with steel inner canisters (EPA, 2010). In addition, uranium is a nonrenewable resource that cannot be replenished on a human timescale. Fossil fuel emissions are also associated with uranium mining and enrichment process and the transport of uranium fuel to the nuclear power plant (EPA, 2010).Therefore while nuclear power plants produce nothing GHG, the processes involved may still produce GHG. The radioactive risks involving the waste and memory could become another environmental problem. Hence, while adding more nuclear power plants will definitely reduce GHG emissions, it is not very practical as it will create numerous environmental problems as mentioned above. The last proposal involves removing carbon in fossil fuels before combustion and sequestering that carbon in underground reservoirs. This involves hydrogen production from fossil fuels that include steam clean reforming and urine gas shift (Steinberg, 1999).In order to suppress CO2 emission from the steam reforming process, CO2 must be sequestered underground. This removes CO2 emission into the atmosphere, thereby reducing GHG emissions making it an effective solution to reduce GHG emissions. However, such a process involves higher cost and lower efficiency (Hetland, 2008) making this solution is the to the lowest degree practical as up to 40% of the energy is disconnected through sequestering in underground (Steinberg, 1999). Therefore the efficiency of such a solution is compromised, as it is not as efficient as conventional coal burning.In addition, by sequestering carbon in underground reservoirs, these reservoirs are susceptible to leaks and this gas might be released again. Also, fossil fuels are considered non-renewable energy sources and therefore such a solution is only effective so long as there are such resources. Therefore, this is the least practical and least efficient solution available. In conclusion, even though there are many solutions to reduce GHG emissions, critical analysis of each proposal is compulsory to determine which solution is the most practical and the most efficient, according to the topical anesthetic constraints and economic cost-benefit analysis.Ultimately, the onus is on governments to recognise the impact of each possible proposal, and to decide which path to take in terms of reducing GHG emissions to reduce the impact of climate change. References environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2010. Nuclear energy, Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved 29/03/2013 from http//www. epa. gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/nuclear. html Grandin, K. , Jagers, P. , Kullander, S. (2010). Nuclear energy. A diary of the Human Environment, 39, 26-30. Hetland, J. (2008).Assessment of pre-combustion decarbonisation schemes for polygeneration from fossil fuels. Clean Technology Environmental Policy, 11, 37-48. Lashof, D. A. , Ahuja, D. R. (1990). Relative contributions of nursery gas emissions to global warmi ng. Nature, 344, 529-531. Moulton, R. J. , Andrasko, K. (1990). Reforestation. EPA Journal, 16 (2), 14-16. Niskanen, A. (1997). Value of external environmental impacts of reforestation in Thailand. Ecological Economics, 26 (1998), 287-297. Palliser, J. (2012). Nuclear Energy. Science Scope January 2012, 14-18.Panwar, N. L. , Kaushik, S. C. , Kothari, S. (2011) post of renewable energy sources in environmental protection A review. renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 1513-1524. Sen, S. , Khazanov, G. , Kishimoto, Y. (2011) Environment, renewable energy and reduced carbon emissions. ray of light Effects and Defects in Solids Incorporating Plasma Science and Plasma Technology, 166 (10,) 834-842. Steinberg, M. (1999). Fossil give notice decarbonisation technology for mitigating global warming. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 24 (8), 771-777.