The video was quite informative. It was astonishing to hear about the amount of energy that the U.S. uses and the percentage of energy that is wasted simply in its production. I agree with the idea that becoming more dependent on renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, water, etc) will take a long time and probably wont see any significant advances in our lifetime. Based on what I’ve been reading there are two main barriers that we face: (1) The initial cost of fossil fuel production of energy is less expansive compared to renewables. This implies the natural shorted sightedness of human nature. We look to maximize initial gains at the expense of the future. (2) There are not enough incentives to make the production of energy via renewables cost effective. This ties into my first point. Over the long run renewables offer a better cost benefit ratio. The Green Economy articles have stressed this on many occasions. Once these two issues have been addressed then I believe there will be a more noticeable improvement in rate of development of renewable technologies for energy production.
This video informed me of many things I never knew when it came to energy and co2 emission. I never knew production of energy had such a high waste. This only makes it more important to not use any fossil fuel for energy production. I also didn’t know that electronic cars are harmful for the environment since they have co2 emissions. The electronic cars emission is less then gas powered cars emission but they still have co2 emissions nonetheless.
I wanted to add some information I received when visiting BR Perobras. BR Perobras is an oil company located in Brazil. They are the 5th largest gas producers. BR Perobras drills for oil and gas mostly off source and also in Amazon forest. They also produce Ethel. Cars in Brazil are made with a “flex” engine, which means the engine can take either gas or Ethel.
This is one way Brazil is trying to use less fossil fuel. Brazil’s energy mostly comes from dams making their energy production fossil fuel free. Dams are not the best fossil fuel free energy production but it is better. All the hydroelectric energy in Brazil goes in to one generator and then is distributed everywhere, making Brazil’s energy eco friendly.
As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time researching alternative fuel/energy sources, I have come across and sometimes participated in the discussion surrounding energy waste. More often than not, the arguments against alternative energy sources usually includes some mention of waste. For example, recently, an article was published in the Wall Street Journal that focused on the energy that went into producing electric cars and the waste that their parts generate. The author reigned in on how much energy was used to produce the the electric vehicles and on the belief that the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere wouldn't be offset by the vehicle's use. First I have to say that if the plant was using another renewable source, it wouldn't matter either. The way how this ties into your remarks on energy is that when considering alternative energy, the waste or cost numbers are always considered first. In my opinion, neither should matter for two reasons: (1) there will come a time when the current costs for energy outweigh what would have been paid to make the necessary changes, and (2) if you switch to more renewable sources of energy, the waste shouldn't be a concern since you are emitting clean energy. So let's say that we find a way to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels from waste materials and build them in a factory run completely on generators that are being powered by hydro energy. Yes you would be using a ton of energy to produce an electric car that uses x amount of energy or a solar panel that will have to be replaced eventually, but if the processes that go into making these things are renewable, does it matter?
Gordi, Normally i do not reply to individual posts but I am willing to make an exception this time since it is an important issue. The first law of thermodynamics tells you that energy cannot be created or destroyed. An energy that goes into a system is gone for ever , according to the second law which says that entropy is always increasing. So the question of whether a system makes sense or not is crucially important. We know, for certain, that ethanol does not and so it is not a solution but part of the problem. The same is true of the EV vehicles: if they are to be fueled from the grid which produces a KWH by emitting 1.2 pounds of CO2 then whenevr we use a KWH that is the equivalent of emitting 1.2 pounds of CO2. If we can produce a KWH for less than 1.2 pounds then that will change the calculations but until that happens we have no choice but to calculate the emissins of an EV vehicle as equal to 1.2 pounds per KWH and if each KWH gets us to drive 3 miles then each mile emits 0.4 pounds of CO2. That is a fact that is not open for discussion.
I believe the issue of energy comes down to cost-benefit analysis which fails to include the long term effects of the 60% of the energy wasted on the environment. We refuse to look at the big picture as even though we might pay a higher price with alternative energy now, the benefit to our environment is significantly higher than the wasteful energy demolishing our current environment currently. We all complain about our future generations missing out on a lot of the things we take for granted today, yet we are not willing to make a change and invest in our future so maybe the future generations can actually thank us. Looking at the past, especially from the industrial revolution onwards, we learned how our ancestors misbehaved with nature that could have come handy for us, yet we continue on that same path and we put our future generations in jeopardy of not being able to enjoy fresh air and water. Like the example our professor uses of the difference between electric and gas cars, I do agree that the benefit on paper is really small but if all cars were electric, there really would not be a major incentive to dig up for oil and continue to ruin the natural environment. Maybe we will have less oil spills that demolish natural habitats and endanger so many species. I believe that change comes in small steps; we have to start somewhere to be able to get to a point where we can make a more significant impact.
It's interesting that this video clip was submitted during the week we had to read about Tourism. It's staggering the amount of energy we use up and the percentage of waste that results from just producing the energy. In my opinion, the tourism industry has no choice but to follow this trend to the end. In order to appease the guests, it must get more luxurious and, accordingly, must use more energy.
At least, this would have been the case had I not visited Brazilian pousadas. In these "small hotels," especially in Paraty and Ihla Grande, there is a minimization in energy waste. Although it is now an unspoken requirement for hotels to have pools, they have managed to lower energy consumption with preferred transportation being walking or biking. Light bulbs were low-watt, ceiling fans were installed as an alternative for AC and in some pousadas, guests were warned against running the water because the hot water can and would run out. Although it would definitely make the guests uncomfortable, it is pretty effective in eliminating energy consumption.
These type of hotels that can bend the rules however would not bode well in metropolises like NYC. Although they blend well in tropical Brazil, New Yorkers are accustomed to luxuries and the hotel would not be able to thrive. This most likely means that metropolises like NYC will be the last to embark on an energy-efficient future because of our focus on short-term gains. Unfortunately, the only way I see energy consumption to ever go down is by exploiting current trends and promoting energy efficient alternatives. Unfortunately, the hospitality thrives by catering to the guest and if enough people ask for it, we have to deliver.
Change has to start somewhere, and as mentioned above, we must take small steps to do it. We cannot just expect to promote these great ideas of conserving energy and using green energy and everybody immediately to follow. We must understand that we are only human. its hard to give something up that has been practiced and used for quite a bit of time, and especially something that we are so comfortably used to. I mean lets look at it this way. If you went on vacation with your family and are paying big bucks to stay at the most luxurious hotel or resort, you would expect to have hot water, heated pool, heated jacuzzi, well light areas, and you don't quite think or care where or how this is achieved, and i bet you don't for one second think what kind of energy is used. there are businesses that are trying to move towards a greener economy that probably use half of the energy that those that are more luxurious to peoples eyes but they probably aren't getting the bucks or customers that the other ones are because of the smaller level of comfort they offer to their guest. Believe it or not, we talk about conserving energy and moving towards a greener economy and I believe many people would agree with me that even though yes it is a wonderful idea only a small percentage of the not money hungry population can grasp. If something is bringing profit, and feeding the individuals family and provides the roof over their head, I don't think that that individual will want to move towards a greener economy if it will be unprofitable. What we fail to sometimes understand that we are only human. We are just a different type of animals in a way, more intelligent but very selfish as well. If an animal is hungry, it will eat, no matter who it has to kill. We as humans must feed and satisfy our needs as well, and many of us fail to care what we have to sacrifice for it. In conclusion I think that talking about those ideas, setting trends, holding debates and campaigns and advertising green energy will eventually lead for newer inventions and trends that will efficiently save energy and make use of renewable resources rather than non renewable resources. But in the end, its all about profit, not for everyone, but for majority of the world.
I think that if we come up with a way of making a bigger profit and bigger benefits of the use of green energy, that is when the major shift will start happening. - Magdalena
This video was very informative on aspects of energy that myself, and probably many others, weren’t aware of. These types of facts and ideas are exactly what we all need to know. Educating the public on actual numbers and facts would be the most effective way to spread knowledge about energy use, waste, and consumption. Just like many other environmental issues, a change in consciousness is what is needed if anything is to be done about this problem. As Magdalena posted, we are only human. It is difficult to change our ways entirely, and a change to a greener economy and conservative energy use would be a process, not a one-step change. Many environmentalists believe that the solution to our energy problems lie in renewable energy sources. Solar, wind and water energy sources are all possible and much cleaner ways of obtaining energy. But, they are not as reliable or cost-efficient as burning fossil fuels. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow; these are the arguments against the change to solar and wind power. But, no matter the energy source, there will always be backlash or effects on our planet; it’s all about weighing out the costs and benefits.
After viewing the video, I had no idea about how the law of energy works. The productions of renewable energies are still drastically low compared to other developed countries but it is encouraging to see production levels in hydro and wind are increasing. It is also nice to see that the U.S are making initiatives to go fossil free by 2030 (highly unlikely but possible). The second law of thermodynamics states that “entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, which experiences no changes when it is isolated from surroundings. Further stating that when energy is produced and converted for use, any excess energy that is produced is also wasted.
This should press the US to press for more renewable technologies as we fight to become an energy independent nation. We have limited quantities of natural gas with coal and petroleum providing harmful emissions. Starting a push towards a green economy can jumpstart our current economy and provide many energy alternatives for our consumption in the future.
The levels of CO2 emissions emitted by the production and driving of electric vehicles will offset current levels produced of petroleum-operated cars. Perhaps the production of energy will still emit volumes of it but any renewable technology is better than nonrenewable. The amount of energy extracted to produce oil and gas then to transport it takes up an absurd amount of energy. I believe renewable alternatives help reduce our energy consumption by only producing how much we need and not overproducing and wasting valuable energy. In order for our population to sustain, alternatives are needed to save our economy and environment.
As the US moves towards utilizing alternative energy sources by 2030, I hope that people are inspired and not "turned off" by the government's efforts. Sometimes when the government takes a stand on issues and forces people to alter their lifestyles and invest money something they will not see the benefits of, the general public becomes sour on the issues and they see the reforms as an annoyance and forget the meaning behind it. As I had said in many posts before, I believe the key to change in this country and around the world is an educated public. If people were better educated they would be motivated to make changes in their everyday lives and could understand that they could have an actual positive collective impact on the globe. I think the government needs to take responsibility in the education of Americans, which they need to improve on to get the public motivated.
I agree with what you have to say. I think its important for the people to want to change for themselves instead of the government forcing them, because in the long run it wont last. Educate the people of the situation and problem at hand, raise awareness just like companies do for their products. Maybe then will Americans find it their own responsibility to change.
It wasn't so suprising to hear that the United States uses around 20% of the world's energy alone. That fact is pretty embarrassing to me, because it shows how much people from the U.S over-consume. The amount of energy we simply waste is far greater than the full energy some countries use up. I agree with what Shavon had to say about what the government must do in order to come up with a solution. Instead of forcing the people to change, the people must find it within themselves to act ethically moral and do what is best for the future.
Secondly, if it is becoming harder and more expensive to extract oil from our reserves than why dont we change the whole process. Oil had its time, it was cheap while it was abundant, bad for the earth, now its time to change our energy to something eco friendly and cost effective.
I was also not surprised to hear that the U.S. is the biggest consumer of energy in the world and yet we have so few laws to regulate it. There is constant research to develop alternative energy sources but our economy is so dependent on "big wigs" that deal in oil that the number of roadblocks to actually switch to renewable energy are too many to count. There are two factors that come in to play here. The individual and the government. As individuals we can always do thing like turn off our light or wash our clothes in cold water or take public transportation to try to limit our energy use and our EV emissions. We also have power to create demand. If everyone were to refuse to buy gasoline then they would stop supplying it but because there are very few other options it is difficult to have this kind of mass holding out. Maybe if gas prices get high enough the public will seek other alternatives and create more of a demand? The other factor is of course the government. Even if the individual did everything is his or her power to reduce energy use and emissions, we would still need help. The biggest culprits to these problems are large organizations like farms and factories as well as major office buildings and cities like New York and Las Vegas that never turn off lights! This kind of action can only come from governmental regulation.
This video stresses some very serious numbers. I have to admit, I was very surprised to hear about the electric cars and gas ones, and the fact that they both harm our environment. I read about production and consumption of electricity. As electricity is transmitted, energy is lost due to resistance. According to the EIA, roughly 6.5% of energy is lost between the source at which it is produced and the amount that is available for sale to consumers. Americans use energy in four primary areas – industrial (manufacturing, agriculture, and construction), transportation, commercial and residential. If we combine residential and commercial, according to the EIA, the Building Sector consumes nearly half (49%) of all energy produced in the United States. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of all the electricity produced in the U.S. is used just to operate buildings.
I think the points presented in the video about the smal difference between electric cars and low gas cars is very crucial. There is a movement in trying to get electric cars on the street, and gas cars off, but really the numbers do not show that much of a difference. One other thing is that switching to electric cars challemges our notions of free consumerism. Since that is a big part of the American capitalist economy, many people will not be ok with giving up the privilege of buying big, gas - guzzling cars. I once went to a house on the campus of Brown University in Providence, RI. The house was completely sustaining off of solar energy, and it was a fully functioning home. Although these houses are a little more expensive to set up, they truly end up saving a lot more money in the long run. These options should be explored further, on a more popular and local level.
The video was very interesting; I did not know that most of the energy produce got wasted. We still depend very much on oil and it’s not going to be easy to change our habits. A more widespread use of natural and renewable energy sources is needed to help take the burden off our current dependency on fossil fuels. The high levels of fossil fuels we burn each and every day are contributing to climate change, air pollution and environmental pollution. By beginning to use more natural and renewable energy sources as part of our day to day lives, we will be doing our part in helping to curb the impacts of climate change, and improve the quality of our surrounding environment and the air we breathe. Although many other issues need to be addressed, making this switch is a large step forward in the fight for a healthier world. With increasing evidence suggesting our use of fossil fuels is contributing towards climate change, now is the time to switch to an alternative means of generating energy where possible. It was also interesting to learn the fact that there is not much difference between electric and gasoline cars. Both of them contaminate the environment one way or the other. Electric cars are a little better than gasoline cars but not by much; however, it’s a good start. Therefore, it is our responsibility to look for new ways to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels and decrease our carbon footprint.
As the biggest consumer of energy in the world, the United States does very little maintain its control. Setting a goal of 2030 to be completely free of fossil fuels is a great step for the United States in making changes to better the environment. Yet, if no moves are made to help complete this target then 2030 quickly turns from a final goal to just a date. One of the major issues that the United States faces in accomplishing this goal is money. The use of fossil fuels has always been easier and cheeper. For Americans to move forward with the use of new renewable energies, there needs to be incentives and/or regulations. The United States lack both. With new incentives to use renewable energy, this will help to get the ball rolling away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. Once the aim has been taken to get rid of using fossil fuels, regulations need to be put in place to finish this goal as well as prevent companies from backtracking. Car companies like Nissan with their Leaf and Tesla with the Model S, have already taken the initiative to move away from fossil fuels. This step needs to be taken by more companies. As long as there is a need for fossil fuels, they will continue to exist.
The video was quite informative. It was astonishing to hear about the amount of energy that the U.S. uses and the percentage of energy that is wasted simply in its production. I agree with the idea that becoming more dependent on renewable sources of energy (solar, wind, water, etc) will take a long time and probably wont see any significant advances in our lifetime. Based on what I’ve been reading there are two main barriers that we face: (1) The initial cost of fossil fuel production of energy is less expansive compared to renewables. This implies the natural shorted sightedness of human nature. We look to maximize initial gains at the expense of the future. (2) There are not enough incentives to make the production of energy via renewables cost effective. This ties into my first point. Over the long run renewables offer a better cost benefit ratio. The Green Economy articles have stressed this on many occasions. Once these two issues have been addressed then I believe there will be a more noticeable improvement in rate of development of renewable technologies for energy production.
ReplyDeleteThis video informed me of many things I never knew when it came to energy and co2 emission. I never knew production of energy had such a high waste. This only makes it more important to not use any fossil fuel for energy production. I also didn’t know that electronic cars are harmful for the environment since they have co2 emissions. The electronic cars emission is less then gas powered cars emission but they still have co2 emissions nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to add some information I received when visiting BR Perobras. BR Perobras is an oil company located in Brazil. They are the 5th largest gas producers. BR Perobras drills for oil and gas mostly off source and also in Amazon forest. They also produce Ethel. Cars in Brazil are made with a “flex” engine, which means the engine can take either gas or Ethel.
This is one way Brazil is trying to use less fossil fuel. Brazil’s energy mostly comes from dams making their energy production fossil fuel free. Dams are not the best fossil fuel free energy production but it is better. All the hydroelectric energy in Brazil goes in to one generator and then is distributed everywhere, making Brazil’s energy eco friendly.
As someone who has spent a considerable amount of time researching alternative fuel/energy sources, I have come across and sometimes participated in the discussion surrounding energy waste. More often than not, the arguments against alternative energy sources usually includes some mention of waste. For example, recently, an article was published in the Wall Street Journal that focused on the energy that went into producing electric cars and the waste that their parts generate. The author reigned in on how much energy was used to produce the the electric vehicles and on the belief that the amount of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere wouldn't be offset by the vehicle's use. First I have to say that if the plant was using another renewable source, it wouldn't matter either. The way how this ties into your remarks on energy is that when considering alternative energy, the waste or cost numbers are always considered first. In my opinion, neither should matter for two reasons: (1) there will come a time when the current costs for energy outweigh what would have been paid to make the necessary changes, and (2) if you switch to more renewable sources of energy, the waste shouldn't be a concern since you are emitting clean energy. So let's say that we find a way to manufacture wind turbines and solar panels from waste materials and build them in a factory run completely on generators that are being powered by hydro energy. Yes you would be using a ton of energy to produce an electric car that uses x amount of energy or a solar panel that will have to be replaced eventually, but if the processes that go into making these things are renewable, does it matter?
ReplyDeleteGordi,
DeleteNormally i do not reply to individual posts but I am willing to make an exception this time since it is an important issue. The first law of thermodynamics tells you that energy cannot be created or destroyed. An energy that goes into a system is gone for ever , according to the second law which says that entropy is always increasing. So the question of whether a system makes sense or not is crucially important. We know, for certain, that ethanol does not and so it is not a solution but part of the problem. The same is true of the EV vehicles: if they are to be fueled from the grid which produces a KWH by emitting 1.2 pounds of CO2 then whenevr we use a KWH that is the equivalent of emitting 1.2 pounds of CO2. If we can produce a KWH for less than 1.2 pounds then that will change the calculations but until that happens we have no choice but to calculate the emissins of an EV vehicle as equal to 1.2 pounds per KWH and if each KWH gets us to drive 3 miles then each mile emits 0.4 pounds of CO2. That is a fact that is not open for discussion.
I believe the issue of energy comes down to cost-benefit analysis which fails to include the long term effects of the 60% of the energy wasted on the environment. We refuse to look at the big picture as even though we might pay a higher price with alternative energy now, the benefit to our environment is significantly higher than the wasteful energy demolishing our current environment currently. We all complain about our future generations missing out on a lot of the things we take for granted today, yet we are not willing to make a change and invest in our future so maybe the future generations can actually thank us. Looking at the past, especially from the industrial revolution onwards, we learned how our ancestors misbehaved with nature that could have come handy for us, yet we continue on that same path and we put our future generations in jeopardy of not being able to enjoy fresh air and water. Like the example our professor uses of the difference between electric and gas cars, I do agree that the benefit on paper is really small but if all cars were electric, there really would not be a major incentive to dig up for oil and continue to ruin the natural environment. Maybe we will have less oil spills that demolish natural habitats and endanger so many species. I believe that change comes in small steps; we have to start somewhere to be able to get to a point where we can make a more significant impact.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that this video clip was submitted during the week we had to read about Tourism. It's staggering the amount of energy we use up and the percentage of waste that results from just producing the energy. In my opinion, the tourism industry has no choice but to follow this trend to the end. In order to appease the guests, it must get more luxurious and, accordingly, must use more energy.
ReplyDeleteAt least, this would have been the case had I not visited Brazilian pousadas. In these "small hotels," especially in Paraty and Ihla Grande, there is a minimization in energy waste. Although it is now an unspoken requirement for hotels to have pools, they have managed to lower energy consumption with preferred transportation being walking or biking. Light bulbs were low-watt, ceiling fans were installed as an alternative for AC and in some pousadas, guests were warned against running the water because the hot water can and would run out. Although it would definitely make the guests uncomfortable, it is pretty effective in eliminating energy consumption.
These type of hotels that can bend the rules however would not bode well in metropolises like NYC. Although they blend well in tropical Brazil, New Yorkers are accustomed to luxuries and the hotel would not be able to thrive. This most likely means that metropolises like NYC will be the last to embark on an energy-efficient future because of our focus on short-term gains. Unfortunately, the only way I see energy consumption to ever go down is by exploiting current trends and promoting energy efficient alternatives. Unfortunately, the hospitality thrives by catering to the guest and if enough people ask for it, we have to deliver.
Change has to start somewhere, and as mentioned above, we must take small steps to do it. We cannot just expect to promote these great ideas of conserving energy and using green energy and everybody immediately to follow. We must understand that we are only human. its hard to give something up that has been practiced and used for quite a bit of time, and especially something that we are so comfortably used to. I mean lets look at it this way. If you went on vacation with your family and are paying big bucks to stay at the most luxurious hotel or resort, you would expect to have hot water, heated pool, heated jacuzzi, well light areas, and you don't quite think or care where or how this is achieved, and i bet you don't for one second think what kind of energy is used. there are businesses that are trying to move towards a greener economy that probably use half of the energy that those that are more luxurious to peoples eyes but they probably aren't getting the bucks or customers that the other ones are because of the smaller level of comfort they offer to their guest. Believe it or not, we talk about conserving energy and moving towards a greener economy and I believe many people would agree with me that even though yes it is a wonderful idea only a small percentage of the not money hungry population can grasp. If something is bringing profit, and feeding the individuals family and provides the roof over their head, I don't think that that individual will want to move towards a greener economy if it will be unprofitable. What we fail to sometimes understand that we are only human. We are just a different type of animals in a way, more intelligent but very selfish as well. If an animal is hungry, it will eat, no matter who it has to kill. We as humans must feed and satisfy our needs as well, and many of us fail to care what we have to sacrifice for it. In conclusion I think that talking about those ideas, setting trends, holding debates and campaigns and advertising green energy will eventually lead for newer inventions and trends that will efficiently save energy and make use of renewable resources rather than non renewable resources. But in the end, its all about profit, not for everyone, but for majority of the world.
ReplyDeleteMagdalena Strama
I think that if we come up with a way of making a bigger profit and bigger benefits of the use of green energy, that is when the major shift will start happening. - Magdalena
DeleteThis video was very informative on aspects of energy that myself, and probably many others, weren’t aware of. These types of facts and ideas are exactly what we all need to know. Educating the public on actual numbers and facts would be the most effective way to spread knowledge about energy use, waste, and consumption. Just like many other environmental issues, a change in consciousness is what is needed if anything is to be done about this problem. As Magdalena posted, we are only human. It is difficult to change our ways entirely, and a change to a greener economy and conservative energy use would be a process, not a one-step change. Many environmentalists believe that the solution to our energy problems lie in renewable energy sources. Solar, wind and water energy sources are all possible and much cleaner ways of obtaining energy. But, they are not as reliable or cost-efficient as burning fossil fuels. The sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow; these are the arguments against the change to solar and wind power. But, no matter the energy source, there will always be backlash or effects on our planet; it’s all about weighing out the costs and benefits.
ReplyDelete- Virginia MacDougall
After viewing the video, I had no idea about how the law of energy works. The productions of renewable energies are still drastically low compared to other developed countries but it is encouraging to see production levels in hydro and wind are increasing. It is also nice to see that the U.S are making initiatives to go fossil free by 2030 (highly unlikely but possible). The second law of thermodynamics states that “entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, which experiences no changes when it is isolated from surroundings. Further stating that when energy is produced and converted for use, any excess energy that is produced is also wasted.
ReplyDeleteThis should press the US to press for more renewable technologies as we fight to become an energy independent nation. We have limited quantities of natural gas with coal and petroleum providing harmful emissions. Starting a push towards a green economy can jumpstart our current economy and provide many energy alternatives for our consumption in the future.
The levels of CO2 emissions emitted by the production and driving of electric vehicles will offset current levels produced of petroleum-operated cars. Perhaps the production of energy will still emit volumes of it but any renewable technology is better than nonrenewable. The amount of energy extracted to produce oil and gas then to transport it takes up an absurd amount of energy. I believe renewable alternatives help reduce our energy consumption by only producing how much we need and not overproducing and wasting valuable energy. In order for our population to sustain, alternatives are needed to save our economy and environment.
As the US moves towards utilizing alternative energy sources by 2030, I hope that people are inspired and not "turned off" by the government's efforts. Sometimes when the government takes a stand on issues and forces people to alter their lifestyles and invest money something they will not see the benefits of, the general public becomes sour on the issues and they see the reforms as an annoyance and forget the meaning behind it. As I had said in many posts before, I believe the key to change in this country and around the world is an educated public. If people were better educated they would be motivated to make changes in their everyday lives and could understand that they could have an actual positive collective impact on the globe. I think the government needs to take responsibility in the education of Americans, which they need to improve on to get the public motivated.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you have to say. I think its important for the people to want to change for themselves instead of the government forcing them, because in the long run it wont last. Educate the people of the situation and problem at hand, raise awareness just like companies do for their products. Maybe then will Americans find it their own responsibility to change.
DeleteIt wasn't so suprising to hear that the United States uses around 20% of the world's energy alone. That fact is pretty embarrassing to me, because it shows how much people from the U.S over-consume. The amount of energy we simply waste is far greater than the full energy some countries use up. I agree with what Shavon had to say about what the government must do in order to come up with a solution. Instead of forcing the people to change, the people must find it within themselves to act ethically moral and do what is best for the future.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if it is becoming harder and more expensive to extract oil from our reserves than why dont we change the whole process. Oil had its time, it was cheap while it was abundant, bad for the earth, now its time to change our energy to something eco friendly and cost effective.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI was also not surprised to hear that the U.S. is the biggest consumer of energy in the world and yet we have so few laws to regulate it. There is constant research to develop alternative energy sources but our economy is so dependent on "big wigs" that deal in oil that the number of roadblocks to actually switch to renewable energy are too many to count.
ReplyDeleteThere are two factors that come in to play here. The individual and the government. As individuals we can always do thing like turn off our light or wash our clothes in cold water or take public transportation to try to limit our energy use and our EV emissions. We also have power to create demand. If everyone were to refuse to buy gasoline then they would stop supplying it but because there are very few other options it is difficult to have this kind of mass holding out. Maybe if gas prices get high enough the public will seek other alternatives and create more of a demand? The other factor is of course the government. Even if the individual did everything is his or her power to reduce energy use and emissions, we would still need help. The biggest culprits to these problems are large organizations like farms and factories as well as major office buildings and cities like New York and Las Vegas that never turn off lights! This kind of action can only come from governmental regulation.
This video stresses some very serious numbers. I have to admit, I was very surprised to hear about the electric cars and gas ones, and the fact that they both harm our environment. I read about production and consumption of electricity. As electricity is transmitted, energy is lost due to resistance. According to the EIA, roughly 6.5% of energy is lost between the source at which it is produced and the amount that is available for sale to consumers. Americans use energy in four primary areas – industrial (manufacturing, agriculture, and construction), transportation, commercial and residential. If we combine residential and commercial, according to the EIA, the Building Sector consumes nearly half (49%) of all energy produced in the United States. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of all the electricity produced in the U.S. is used just to operate buildings.
DeleteI think the points presented in the video about the smal difference between electric cars and low gas cars is very crucial. There is a movement in trying to get electric cars on the street, and gas cars off, but really the numbers do not show that much of a difference. One other thing is that switching to electric cars challemges our notions of free consumerism. Since that is a big part of the American capitalist economy, many people will not be ok with giving up the privilege of buying big, gas - guzzling cars. I once went to a house on the campus of Brown University in Providence, RI. The house was completely sustaining off of solar energy, and it was a fully functioning home. Although these houses are a little more expensive to set up, they truly end up saving a lot more money in the long run. These options should be explored further, on a more popular and local level.
ReplyDeleteThe video was very interesting; I did not know that most of the energy produce got wasted. We still depend very much on oil and it’s not going to be easy to change our habits. A more widespread use of natural and renewable energy sources is needed to help take the burden off our current dependency on fossil fuels. The high levels of fossil fuels we burn each and every day are contributing to climate change, air pollution and environmental pollution.
ReplyDeleteBy beginning to use more natural and renewable energy sources as part of our day to day lives, we will be doing our part in helping to curb the impacts of climate change, and improve the quality of our surrounding environment and the air we breathe. Although many other issues need to be addressed, making this switch is a large step forward in the fight for a healthier world. With increasing evidence suggesting our use of fossil fuels is contributing towards climate change, now is the time to switch to an alternative means of generating energy where possible.
It was also interesting to learn the fact that there is not much difference between electric and gasoline cars. Both of them contaminate the environment one way or the other. Electric cars are a little better than gasoline cars but not by much; however, it’s a good start. Therefore, it is our responsibility to look for new ways to decrease our consumption of fossil fuels and decrease our carbon footprint.
As the biggest consumer of energy in the world, the United States does very little maintain its control. Setting a goal of 2030 to be completely free of fossil fuels is a great step for the United States in making changes to better the environment. Yet, if no moves are made to help complete this target then 2030 quickly turns from a final goal to just a date. One of the major issues that the United States faces in accomplishing this goal is money. The use of fossil fuels has always been easier and cheeper. For Americans to move forward with the use of new renewable energies, there needs to be incentives and/or regulations. The United States lack both. With new incentives to use renewable energy, this will help to get the ball rolling away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy. Once the aim has been taken to get rid of using fossil fuels, regulations need to be put in place to finish this goal as well as prevent companies from backtracking. Car companies like Nissan with their Leaf and Tesla with the Model S, have already taken the initiative to move away from fossil fuels. This step needs to be taken by more companies. As long as there is a need for fossil fuels, they will continue to exist.
ReplyDelete