Save the World!
Environment Case Study/Business Game
The following case study can be done individually or as a group exercise.
PDF Version of the Save the World Environment Case Study You are welcome to print the case study out for use with your own students provided that the copyright message on each page is not removed (for non-commercial purposes only).
The leading industrial nations have finally decided to take action to stop global warming. They have set up a committee which has been given just one hour to come up with a strategy to greatly reduce global warming over the next 30 years without having a pronounced negative effect on world economies! You have to say what mix of the following methods you would use and justify your recommendations.
You have been asked to take the following factors into account when deciding your strategy.
- How long will it take? Some solutions such as fusion power are very long term. Also the longer before solutions are implemented, the harder it becomes to tackle global warming.
- Effectiveness. Some solutions can be only partial answers: wind farms could probably only supply 10% of the UK's energy at best and less in some other countries.
- Cost - some solutions are cheap and cheerful whereas others would be very expensive
- Risk of failure - some have high risks due to untried technology such as carbon sequestration
- Opposition: would it be possible to get people, governments and business "on board"? Cuts to air and car travel would be deeply unpopular.
Non-renewable energy sourcesThese are sources which will be used up and can't then be used again. |
|||
| SOLUTION | POSITIVES | NEGATIVES | |
| Nuclear power (about 7% of global energy use) |
|
|
|
| Coal (about 23% of global energy use) |
|
|
|
| Oil (about 36% of global energy use) |
|
|
|
| Gas (about 21% of global energy use) |
|
|
|
Renewable energy sourcesThese don't run out as they are always being replaced as they are ultimately being powered by the sun (wind farms, solar and hydro-electric power) or moon (wave power). |
|||
| Hydro-electricity (about 2% of global energy use) |
|
|
![]() |
| Wind Farms (less than 1% of global energy use at present) |
|
|
![]() |
| Wave power (less than 1% of global energy use) |
|
|
|
| Tidal Power (less than 1% of global energy use) |
|
|
|
| Solar Power (less than 1% of global energy use) |
|
|
![]() |
| Biofuels/biomass (about 11% of global energy use). This is biological material such as palm oil that can be used as fuel or for industrial production. |
|
|
|
| Fusion power |
|
|
|
Other methods of reducing global warming |
|||
| Reduce car, aeroplane and ship emissions |
|
|
|
| Improved energy efficiency. Better house insulation (lofts, cavity walls, low energy light bulbs). Improved efficiency for appliances such as dishwashers. |
|
|
|
Protecting forests. |
|
|
|
| Carbon sequestration (storing carbon dioxide gas deep underground) |
|
|
|
SOLUTION
Of course there are many possible solutions you could put forward to this exercise; many combinations could be persuasively argued for, and the final solution you choose is not important. You would be assessed on how logically and eloquently you made your case for whichever scheme you decided to support. Instead of writing your findings you might be asked to give a short presentation of your case in front of an audience. This would test your public speaking skills and ability to present an argument. This type of exercise might also be given in the form of a group exercise.
Having said this there are a number of fundamental points which could be made.
- A very useful contribution can be made simply by improving energy efficiency - low energy light bulbs and loft insulation are extremely simple and cheap to implement, but would make a valuable contribution to decreasing energy usage.
- Although it would be appealing to go for a solution involving just renewable energy this is unlikely to be feasible. As present, less than 5% of world energy comes from renewable sources other than biofuels and lack of suitable sites means that this is unlikely to exceed 25% of energy output in the foreseeable future.
- Another problem with renewable energy (except hydroelectric) is that it cannot be turned on and off at will: solar power only functions at night and wind turbines when there is wind, so they have to be combined with non-renewable methods to satisfy demand at times when they are not working.
- This means that there will have to be a major contribution from either nuclear or other non-renewable sources (coal, oil, gas). Also India, China and the United States are building coal fired power stations at an increasing rate and are unlikely to stop in the short term and these power stations will have a 30 year life span. This means that carbon sequestration schemes may be the only practicable way of removing enough carbon dioxide emissions to at least keep global warming under some sort of control.
- A recent article in Scientific American on solar power suggests that due to increasing efficiency, it could be as cheap as other energy sources by 2020. Also see Is solar power worth it? and Solar energy will be more economical than fossil fuels in 10 years
- A recent study by Mark Jacobson of Stanford University in Energy and Environmental Science calculated the impacts each energy source would have if it alone powered all the cars and lorries in the United States. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted, impact on the ecosystem e.g. using land, the fuel's impact on pollution, the availability of necessary resources, and the energy form's reliability were the major factors looked at. He found:
- Wind is easily the best source of energy followed by: 2) concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a water tower); 3) geothermal energy; 4) tidal energy; 5) solar panels; 6) wave energy and 7) hydroelectric dams. Biofuels from corn and plant waste came last with nuclear power and "clean" coal. See this New Scientist article for a fascinating analysis of the economics of wind power and an article from Scientific American on the increasing size and efficiency of turbines
- Ethanol-based biofuels increase harm to health, wildlife, water supply, and land use compared to fossil fuels. It would take 30 times more space to grow enough corn to power the US fleet than the equivalent amount of wind turbines. Bioethanol would also produce more greenhouse gases than wind power.
- Nuclear power gives 25 times more carbon and air pollution than wind. Half the emissions are caused by the time it takes to plan and build a nuclear power station when fossil fuels have to be burnt for energy. See the BBC Article "Nuclear 'cheapest low-carbon option' for UK energy "
- Clean coal (burning coal, catching the carbon dioxide emitted and storing it underground). Building and using such power stations would give over 100 times more carbon than building and using wind turbines
- "World Can Be Powered by Alternative Energy, Using Today's Technology, in 20-40 Years"
PDF Version of the Save the World Environment Case Study You are welcome to print the case study out for use with your own students provided that the copyright message on each page is not removed (for non-commercial purposes only).





