There are many forms of energy – dealing with the bad and the good factors

Energy cannot yet be produced entirely without emissions. But some forms of energy have been shown to be less harmful to the climate and human health. Which form of energy gets the cleanest set of papers?

There are no dirty secrets. Research data is available, and when asked which form of energy is most harmful to the climate, the answer is clear. According to Jouni Havukainen, Associate Professor of Sustainability Science at LUT University in Finland, the most damaging effects on the climate come from burning coal, peat and oil. If peat is almost tied with coal in terms of emissions, natural gas comes in a close third. The least harmful forms of energy are low-emission and renewable energies such as wind and solar power.

Globally, lignite has the highest accident and air pollution mortality rate per unit of electricity (37.72 deaths per thousand terawatt hours), followed by coal (24.62), oil (18.43), biomass (4.63) and natural gas (2.82). For wind, nuclear and solar, the corresponding figures are negligible, less than one unit.

Antti Arasto, Director of VTT’s Energy and Hydrogen Research Unit and member of the Climate Panel, says:

– We cannot do anything without having an impact on people, the environment and the climate. According to Mr Arasto, oil is the most harmful form of energy because we are so dependent on it and it is difficult to get rid of, especially in the transport sector.

– In terms of energy production, coal dominates, but it is not as challenging as oil. Besides, coal is rapidly disappearing from Finland’s portfolio.

Roughly speaking, for non-renewable energy sources, the most significant climate impact comes from fossil fuel emissions. In the case of renewable energy, the climate impact comes from the production of raw materials for power plants, the construction of power plants and, at the end of the plant’s life cycle, dismantling and recycling. When building a hydroelectric power plant, land use changes can be large and dams affect the movement of fish. The Agency believes that we will also see the negative impacts of wind and solar power, but not all impacts have yet been realised or identified. When energy production is decentralised, the adverse effects of different renewable energy sources will not be exacerbated. 

According to Havukainen, the biggest emissions in renewable energy production are caused by the construction of production plants. For example, wind power’s own carbon dioxide emissions are around 10-11 g/kWh, mainly from the construction, transport and maintenance of the power plants. There are some indirect negative impacts from the manufacture, installation, operation and decommissioning of turbines. However, renewable energy sources produce more energy than is used in their production and produce fewer emissions than other energy sources during their life cycle. Once a wind or solar power plant is built, the energy produced by the plants is practically emission-free.

In the last couple of decades, fossil fuels have also been replaced by renewable biomass. However, according to an international study, biomass consumption should be concentrated in sectors such as furniture, construction, fibre production, textiles and chemicals, rather than in energy use.

Health impacts in mines and at heights

Fossil energy sources have a negative impact on the health of the population. The main health risk associated with fossil fuels is man-made climate change. According to THL, the health impacts of climate change include adverse health effects from heat waves, water quality problems, moisture damage in buildings, accidents caused by extreme weather events, and reduced services and reliability. Climate change may also increase mental health problems such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The use of fossil fuels has toxic effects and their combustion produces acidifying emissions such as nitrogen dioxide and sulphur. Power plants emit carbon dioxide and particulate matter into the atmosphere. In Finland, 60% of particulate emissions come from energy production. In addition, the production of fuels used in power plants, for example in mines, causes health effects in the form of dust, metals and radiation.

The Agency hopes that the use of fossil resources will soon reach a tipping point, after which fossil use will decrease and the hidden subsidies they receive will diminish.

– As use declines, fossil energy will become less and less attractive.

Low-emission forms of energy such as wind, solar, hydro and nuclear have significantly less impact on health. Wind power raises fears of health problems, such as the effects of infrasound. However, modern power plants do not produce any infrasound and, if noise levels are in line with current Finnish regulations, wind turbine noise is not a health hazard.

Inconclusive truths

The climate damage of fossil fuels is undeniable, but is there something about renewables that is not being talked about enough? Good, bad or ugly? We don’t have a single silver bullet to solve all energy issues and, according to Agence, there should be more talk about it. But the debate seems to be about one solution at a time. 

– When a particular solution is applied more widely, negative effects are also noticed. Bioenergy is a good example: the idea of the limits of sustainable use has evolved significantly in recent years. Each solution has its own challenges and when negative impacts emerge, we tend to demonise them and forget that the most important thing for the climate is to move quickly away from fossil fuels, says Arasto.

– I believe that a more holistic view of impacts will become more important in the future, because of course the transition should not come at any price. However, the inconvenient truth is that the green transition will require massive investment in new primary energy production and infrastructure. This will also have an impact.

Electrification and decoupling from traditional forms of energy production will require huge amounts of new primary energy production, and the demand for raw materials will increase. Recently, however, and to the Agency’s delight, there has been more talk about the opportunities of the green transition. This has not yet become a general tautology, but the shift is no longer being discussed only in terms of minimising costs, but in terms of potential and benefits.