Impacts of Non-Renewable Energy and Fracking

Developing a finite energy supply

Non-renewable energy resources are finite: they are used faster than they are naturally replaced, so their supplies will eventually run out. Coal, oil and natural gas are fossil fuels. Uranium is also non-renewable, but it is a nuclear fuel rather than a fossil fuel.

Developing an energy resource means making it available for use. This includes extracting the fuel and building the infrastructure needed to supply energy. Development can increase energy availability and create employment, but its impacts extend beyond the extraction site. Mining can damage a local habitat, while greenhouse gases released when fuels are used contribute to global climate change.

A useful assessment therefore separates impacts on people from impacts on the environment, and considers both benefits and costs.

Coal: accessible energy with substantial environmental costs

Coal occurs in seams within rock. It is extracted by mining, including opencast mining, where material above the coal is removed to expose it. Improved machinery and mechanisation have made coal easier and cheaper to extract.

Large reserves and relatively low extraction costs make coal an affordable energy source. Coal can also be stored, helping maintain a reliable fuel supply. These benefits explain why developing coal can be attractive where increasing energy availability is a priority.

However, mining creates risks for workers. Dust can contribute to lung conditions, and mine collapses can cause injury or death. Opencast extraction removes vegetation and soil across large areas, destroying habitats and changing the landscape. Mining can also pollute water sources and leave large waste tips.

Burning coal releases carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and causes air pollution. It also releases sulphur dioxide, which contributes to acid rain. Its low financial cost therefore does not mean that its overall costs to people and the environment are low.

Oil and natural gas: employment, pollution and accident risks

Oil and natural gas are developed through drilling and extraction. Improvements in machinery allow drilling in difficult environments, including deep-sea locations, making previously difficult-to-reach supplies more accessible.

Oil development creates jobs, providing income for workers. Its main risks include leaks and spills: oil can harm human health, damage plants and wildlife, and pollute surrounding environments. Burning oil also releases carbon dioxide. The benefits of employment and energy supply must therefore be weighed against both routine emissions and the possible consequences of a spill.

Natural gas produces fewer emissions when burned than coal or oil, giving it a relative environmental advantage. However, fewer emissions does not mean that gas is pollution-free: its use still releases greenhouse gases.

Leaked gas can disperse rather than remain as an oil spill, but gas leaks are still dangerous because they can cause explosions. This illustrates why an advantage in one respect does not remove other risks.

Uranium: low greenhouse gas emissions but long-term waste

Uranium is used as fuel in nuclear power stations. Developing nuclear energy involves building and maintaining these stations, which creates employment. Nuclear electricity generation produces few greenhouse gas emissions compared with burning fossil fuels.

However, nuclear stations are expensive to build and maintain. Poor maintenance or a disaster can lead to radiation leaks, threatening people and the environment. Nuclear energy also produces radioactive waste, which needs secure storage and is expensive to manage.

The contrast is important: nuclear energy avoids many of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil-fuel use, but it introduces different risks and long-term responsibilities. Low emissions alone do not make an energy resource impact-free.

How fracking makes more gas available

An energy shortage occurs when available supplies are insufficient to meet demand. Technology can help by allowing people to extract resources that were previously difficult to access.

Fracking, short for hydraulic fracturing, releases natural gas trapped in shale rock. A mixture of water, sand and chemicals is pumped into the rock at high pressure. The pressure fractures the shale, releasing trapped gas so that it can be extracted.

The important connection is technology → access to trapped gas → increased usable energy supply. Fracking does not create new gas or make it renewable; it makes an existing finite resource more accessible.

Does fracking resolve shortages without creating new problems?

Domestic shale gas production can increase energy supply and reduce reliance on imported gas. This can improve energy security, because a country depends less on supplies from elsewhere. Development also creates employment. Additional supply may help reduce energy bills, although lower bills are a possible benefit rather than a guaranteed outcome.

Shale gas has the same advantage as other natural gas when burned: it produces fewer emissions than coal or oil. Nevertheless, fracking can release methane, itself a greenhouse gas, so the extraction process must be considered alongside the emissions from using the fuel.

Fracking also uses large quantities of water. Fracking fluids may contaminate water supplies, and potentially harmful chemicals can affect human health and ecosystems. The process has also been linked to increased earthquake activity.

Fracking can therefore help address a shortage, but this is not the same as proving that it is the best solution. Its value depends on whether the additional energy, employment and reduced import dependence outweigh the environmental and health risks. Since shale gas remains finite, fracking cannot provide a permanent solution to energy shortages.

Weighing the impacts of development

Different resources involve different trade-offs. Coal offers relatively cheap, accessible energy but has major pollution and habitat costs. Oil creates jobs but carries spill risks. Natural gas has lower combustion emissions than coal or oil, yet still contributes to greenhouse gas emissions. Uranium supports low-emission electricity generation but requires costly stations and secure radioactive-waste management.

A strong judgement considers the scale, duration and distribution of these impacts. For example, employment benefits workers during development, whereas habitat damage or waste-management responsibilities may continue much longer. Increasing supply is a benefit, but it must be assessed alongside the costs of achieving it.