Example research essay topic: Fossil Fuels Solar Panels - 1,681 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Should Permission be Given for a Wind Farm at Gunson Height? Hills rolling across the countryside, lush green fields for miles, dozens of walk paths to appreciate the beautiful scenery, used by families for picnics and days out, as well as hikers wanting a view worth walking miles to. Or a piece of rugged, unspectacular England that is just like seven thousand other walks in the country? Dozens of 30 M tall hideous steel contraptions, cutting blades slicing through the air and making the noise equivalent to an oncoming car.

Or machines designed to make the planet a cleaner place for the creatures and future generations destined to live here? This was the situation with Gunson Height. Gunson Height was a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and an area popular with walkers. There were plans to build a wind farm in the area, which bought up many concerns over the effects on the environment wind farms actually had, and would it outweigh the benefits given? According to statistics, 80 % of the residents were in favor of a wind farm being built.

However, many people weren't sure whether the environmental and cost benefits would balance the damage to the scenery that would be caused. This meant that there were three options, to either continue plans to build, build in a different area than planned, or not to build at all. The UK is currently uses 70 % fossil fuels, 27 % nuclear and just 3 % renewable energy sources for power. There is enough coal left for approximately 200 years. Whilst this doesn't seem to affect todays population in a major way, it will be the future generations to suffer. The vast majority of coal for the UK comes from the North Sea, where there are sufficient coal reserves, that are cheaper to transport to power stations.

However, just because the coal is cheaper to use, this doesn't mean that it is as clean as other coal reserves in the world. Fossil fuels release Greenhouse gases, warming the earth and causing rising sea levels and unpredictable weather patterns. Oil and gas, though cleaner than coal are in less availability, sources only expected to last another 30 years. When these run out, the amount of coal used will rise, meaning sources will run out quicker and more dangerous gases will be released into the atmosphere sooner than expected, and before the world has had a chance to resolve the problem. The fact that reserves are going to run out and that the earth is becoming warmer, killing animal species and creating massive income loss for countries due to trading becoming difficult and areas that depend on tourism losing profit has prompted the world to take action. Renewable sources of power are being used more and more.

These include solar energy, which use solar panels to convert the suns energy into electricity, hydroelectricity, which uses the force of running water, and wind energy, using turbines turned by the wind. There are currently 117 built wind farms in the UK, and 163 in planning. The recent war in Iraq bought to attention just how little oil there is. Oil, though still a fossil fuel, does not emit as many dangerous gases as coal, and is therefore used more. Much of the oil used in the US is from Iraq. When Saddam Hussein threatened to withdraw oil supplies from them, there was panic.

Oil is one of the main money bringers for the US, as they sell it to other countries that need it. But if this is what oil is worth, would it be wise to encourage wind farms in certain areas? Without such a demand for oil, bot Iraq and America would suffer, as well as other countries that use it for it's main income. With wind farms not as much money would come into the countries, causing economic problems. When the oil supplies looked as though they may be restricted, the prices went up to the highest they had been in eleven years. Whilst environmentalists hoped that this would mean the British government would be encouraged to focus more on alternative methods of energy, including wind.

But as it would save the UK money, it would lose other countries theirs. Though it would create a cleaner environment in future years, it could, at worst case scenario, plunge other countries into poverty. Is it really worth having a cleaner environment but even more poor countries? Or should it be left the way it is, and use fossil fuels until mankind is is forced to use one of natures alternatives? A wind farm built at Gunson Height would have to be built on owned land. Most of the land in the area is owned by farmers, so they would require payment for a wind farm to built on their land.

This would mean better income for farmers, many of which were struggling with the amount of money they already earned. It would have stood in the highest point in the area, 3332 m high. Enough electricity would have been supplied for 7000 homes, cutting down the levels of sulphur and nitrogen oxide emitted. These gases cause acid rain, which causes damage to limestone and marble buildings, and raises the acidity in rivers and ponds, killing the wildlife that depend on the water and the creatures who rely on the pond life to provide food. Moorlands are also affected.

However, wind farms disrupt the flight patterns of birds, and can hit them with the blades, killing them instantly. The site is 15 km away from Duddon Estuary, an important habitat for birds. There is proof that the noise of a wind turbine effects animals and birds, there have been cases of hawks building nests on top of the turbines, and one reason farmers allow them to be built on their land is that grazing cattle and sheep don't take notice of the noise created, another reason why farmers would have been pleased about them. Enough clean energy would have been supplied for 7000 homes. At an average of three people per household, that would be 21, 000 people with cheap, clean electricity.

It also means that 21, 000 people wouldn't be with sufficient power if the winds weren't strong enough to generate as much as needed. But why wind energy, rather than solar or hydro? It has already been confirmed that nuclear energy plants would still have to be used even if wind farms were used, in case they failed or couldn't produce the needed amount of electricity. With a wind farm in the area, less energy would be lost as it traveled to homes, rather than if it had to travel a long distance. Britain is naturally a cold and windy country, meaning that the turbines wouldn't have much trouble in moving. Solar panels depend on the sun, and due to the fact that Britain is cloudy and doesn't receive much sunlight means they wouldn't be of much use the whole year.

Energy demands are higher in the winter due to it being much colder. Winter is usually rainy and more cloudy than usual, meaning solar panels wouldn't be capable of meeting the energy demands. It is windier during the colder months, meaning that wind turbines can work more efficiently when needed. The second option would to have built elsewhere. Whilst this would have meant the residents of Gunson Height wouldn't have to endure the noise created and the sight of them, other people elsewhere would, so either way someone would lose and win. But would it be?

Whilst some people see turbines as ugly, others are unaffected by them. And it would be the residents with them who received clean and cheap electricity. Would the advantages balance the cons? Gunson Height was the highest point in the area, places at lower altitudes have less wind, meaning that more turbines would of have to been built, costing more money, creating more noise and a bigger impact on the bird community in the area.

The last and third option was to not build at all. Whilst it would mean no visual impact on the landscape, or noise disturbances, would it be worth the loss of possible benefits? On average, a company in charge of a wind farm will donate 150, 000 a year to the local economy, which can be used to pay for scholarships, equipment for schools and to make the local community a better place to live in. This is a bonus to any community. A wind farm also creates jobs, only two or three technicians that are required to ensure the turbines are still working, but jobs none the less.

Without a wind farm, none of these benefits could be taken advantage of. However, many people in the UK feel that turbines are ugly pieces of machinery, and create too much noise. Not building would ensure that no one was bothered by anything, as there would be no farms to be bothered by. Would the benefits balance the disadvantages? This is question that determines whether or not a wind farm should have been built at Gunson Height. The UK is the ideal place to start using environmentally friendly methods of energy.

The UK is has windy weather, and is well suited to using wind farms, there is lots of countryside and the national economy doesn't depend on the selling of oil and coal to other countries. However, on a world wide scale, different methods of energy are needing to be used, to save the environment for the people who will be alive in years to come. Should a wind farm have been built and Gunson Height the start of a new revolution? Or left alone, the nation ignoring the increasing problem? It was the peoples opinion that decided whether a wind farm should have been built, but if future plans for environmentally friendly methods of energy supply are based on opinion, the country needs to be made aware of the problem, or else the world is going to face a dire situation.

Research essay sample on Fossil Fuels Solar Panels