I find the discussion of energy use and the future of energy sources very interesting. It seems like most of the general public are aware of the increasing demand and decreasing supply, yet no one is taking significant action to address it and the world is moving forward with the use and abuse of gas and oil. I am not sure what the solution to this would be, or if it has been invented yet, but I do not believe that the answers lie within nuclear energy. There are many pros and cons of nuclear power, yet I believe three major cons outweigh any pro that a supporter could imagine. One of these would be the waste associated with nuclear energy. The toxic mixture of uranium and plutonium that is used to generate power within nuclear plants need to be disposed of after the energy is obtained. This mixture is placed within a steel-lined concrete basin filled with water. Besides the obvious risk of the mixture remaining radioactive for thousands of years after it is discarded, the management of concrete basins would pose a huge strain on the public, which brings us back to many waste management issues. Integral Fast Reactors do ease this issue a bit by reducing the volume (this plant reprocesses some of the chemicals when possible) and toxicity (the mixture remains radioactive for hundreds of years) of the waste, but it does not eliminate either problem fully. A related issue would be the water use by nuclear plants. Nuclear power plants use tremendous amounts of water to heat and cool their systems. Without this, the process would not be possible. There have been reports worldwide of nuclear plants' waste leeching into nearby waterways killing marine life and posing a health risk to the natural environment and humans alike. This also poses a risk to many sea animals and plankton because they are easily be sucked into the cooling water systems. Additionally, cooling systems currently do not filter heavy metals or salt when they are discharged into surrounding bodies of water, polluting the environment. Water is one of the earth's most precious resources and I do not think we can afford to damage it by increasing the frequency of pollution. Finally, yet maybe most importantly, is the key ingredient of nuclear power, uranium. In the United States, uranium is imported. The increase in demand from nuclear power plants would require transportation to increase, magnifying many pollution issues already in existence. Most of all, uranium is a natural resource and it is limited. If we switched from traditional energy sources to nuclear energy sources, we would just be exchanging one limited resource for another. As soon as we begin to reach the peak of uranium reserves, we would be searching for another way to create energy.
The topic of renewable energy has been discussed various times and shot down repeatedly mostly because of the price and the impracticability of replacing fossil fuel energy with solar energy, impractical because everyone wants it to be done ASAP but the only effective method is replacing one thing at a time and no one wants to do it. That's why it was such a pleasure to read about Morocco's situation. This is not a story about someone saying they want to be green and everyone arguing until an agreement is reached two weeks later and then the plan goes into action. This is a story instead of a country who accepts energy is the problem, proposes a solution and is in the process of putting it in action. Corporate businesses and congressmen do not interfere. As shavon mentioned, it's an important issue but no one is striving to meet its demands. No one wants to. They're too busy thinking of the short run money instead of focusing on the company's future. Fossil fuel is in the past. A Hydroelectric future is a good alternative; we receive energy but we have to care for our ocean to maintain it, an achievement bonus for environmentalists everywhere. The only negative I can see from green energy is that it doesn't give ENOUGH energy. We require more of green energy alternatives to match one fossil fuel equivalent. And then when we get to the price...it's ludicrous that its cheaper to harm the planet than it is to help it. The only reason Morocco has succeeded in something we should have is because the decision was made and they are following it. There are no objections, no considering it for days--they want the solution and they're working for it. They want a future...but America just wants its profit. And that needs to stop for the sake of our planet and our selves.
I think price is a factor with renewable energy because they have not found ways to make it cheaper yet. I think once we give it a little time the cost of this will come down and we will be able to use more alternative energy sources. I think newer homes have a lot of way to conserve and use less energy. I know my parents moved from their house a few years ago to a house that was about the same size and the energy bill is now half, the house holds heat a lot better and has a lot of energy saving appliances. I believe if people start to update their houses and find ways to save this could also be a help.
Monday, March 25, 2013 7:39 AM Developing countries have it easier to develop plans, laws, and products that will help with the energy problem compared to developed countries. This is because it cost a lot for developed countries to change laws and products that will help the energy problems. Developing countries are able to learn from developed countries' mistakes and hopeful make better solutions.
Energy plans can not be the same for every country. The video on earth we watched states how complex the earth is and any thing we do to solve the problems earth has will also be complex. When it comes to Eco friendly energy alternatives every town will have a different solution. This is also because some towns do not have the space for energy alternatives such as wind and solar energy. Some towns do not have rivers for a dam. Nuclear energy might be something that will fill the gap to conventional energy and alternative energy. However many people including me are uncomfortable with the idea of nuclear energy. As you can see there is no one solution or quick-fix to our problems. The sooner people learn this the sooner we can make many plans for alternative energy.
As the professor mentioned in his video that the demand for oil will increase much faster than the supply of oil we will have availble to us by 2030 and there will be a shift to the very limited unconventional oil. The gap has to be plugged somewhere but it could be decrease the demand which depends on the population on Earth. Coal and nuclear energy are the two major options that we would be forced to turn towards. I dont think anyone in their right mind would want to be around coal or nuclear energy unless we plan on leaving in body suits by 2030. Its just a feasible option and is quite scary to think about. Renewable energy has its own costs and benefits attached to it as it also releases hazardous checmicals and gases through the production cycle. When we saw the Nova movie, we saw how the earth uses energy from the sun, water, wind and lightning strikes to maintain fuction. I think its time to maybe explore such options even further so they are both sustainable and green. Maybe energy consumption needs to be quota offed. Seeing as the earth is getting warmer, we wont be needed to heat using oil, rather will be looking for ways to cool off.
It sure is something to talk about. It kind of makes you wonder if its a good thing gas prices are higher. We would possibly waste more fuel if the prices were cheaper, and yes I mean waste. People are more reserved about where they drive or what kind of vehicles they are going to buy because of the prices of fuel. In return we are not abusing and using more fuel. I think it might sound silly and I don't really like the idea but if prices rise we can possibly use even less fuel.
There is no doubt that we need to find another energy source to use but I am not sure that nuclear energy is the best alternative. As mentioned in earlier posts, there is a lot of waste in the use of nuclear energy not to mention the potential dangers associated with its use. That being said, we also cannot depend on agricultural alternatives such as corn. Brazil for instance has made impressive strides in the use of and transition to ethanol. The transition has been a remarkably fast one partially due to Brazil’s economic position as a developing country. Because Brazil’s efforts are still so new we have little knowledge of the effects it is having on the demand for soil and food (both of which will increase as the need for oil increases). Another alternative could be wind energy. The major challenge there is that wind does not produce as much energy as fossil fuels.
On a similar note, I saw an interesting article about strides made in energy saving devices: http://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/electricity-usage#15
I am always skeptical when I hear/read topics about energy and sustainability, especially when it is in reference to developing nations. Debates, awareness campaigns, and research have been going on for many years with little to show for it. As another student pointed out, the main problem here is lack of economic incentive to act. That has always been one of the biggest barriers to change for greening different industries. Looking at change from a behavioral aspect, it only happens when there is great trauma or personal gain. The way I see it all boils down to human nature. I feel that is the fundamental, underlying issue in all of this.
Alternative energy is a very tough process. There are a lot of ways we can help the environment and the world is slowly working its way to become more sufficient. I think smaller towns in the United States or even the world can find various ways to have alternative energy sources. I live in a town near a decent size river and a good amount of empty land. I always believed we should have some type of wind turbines, but i know people would complain that they were eye soars and would look ugly. Its sad but true people in my town and along with other places just complain and dislike any type of change. I also think everyone should be given a tax break or something significant to start to use solar energy. This is something that is available to people but not so cheap. I do not think nuclear power is the best idea nor would it be suitable everywhere.
I believe that the future of energy and energy sources is a very important topic, but also is a highly debatable issue. As my class mate said, there has been a significant rise is the realization by the general public that we are abusing gas and oil everyday, but very little action has been taken. The movement to nuclear and coal energy is e next step being looked at, but I do not think that either of these are the answers. Nuclear and coal energy both pose and will cause huge problems and massive amounts of pollution on our earth in the future. I believe that the switch in energy should be made to renewable sources, such as solar and wind power. Wouldn't it be nice if it was that easy? The problem with this switch is the costs and unreliability of the sources; the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so there are debates that building turbines and using solar panels is more costly. Another argument is that turbines are not aesthetically pleasing and may kill migrating birds. As you can see, no matter the energy source there will always be some debate on why it is no good, the only thing to do is weigh out the cost and benefits. The benefits of renewable energy far outweigh the environmental costs of nuclear and coal energy.
In the audio clip, it is mentioned that electric vehicles and standard gas cars both produce the waste of .4lbs of carbon dioxide per mile. While this is a discouraging fact for anyone who desires a smaller personal carbon footprint, at least purchasing an electric vehicle is a display of values. The consumer values the importance of lessening Western society's dependence on oil. The truth about fossil fuel is that it is an ancient resource that is finite and will soon end. The function of capitalism is that businesses will never change their products unless they see trends in consumer purchases and demands. If there is a demand for vehicles that require less fossil fuel, more development and research in environmentally conscious vehicles will likely ensue. As I mentioned earlier, it is a shame that conventional gas vehicles and electric vehicles produce the same amount of waste. But if a driver is going to produce the same amount of carbon regardless, perhaps a good starting point would be lessening our dependency of fossil fuels.
If New York State can truly become fossil fuel free by 2030, this would be a wonderful step in a greener economy. Just like the XL size soda ban in New York City, no limitations will go without protest. Ultimately, people don't need large amounts of soda, and people don't need to burn fossil fuels at rapid rates. People don't like the idea of their freedom being limited, but sometimes certain freedoms that are assumed to be inalienable are detrimental to everyone else.
Very rarely does a problem only have one solution. You mentioned that some have argued that instead of trying to increase the supply of energy, maybe we should try to reign in the demand curve for energy. However, that argument was countered with the fact that the population is expected to reached a staggering nine billion people. So maybe this is one of those problems that has multiple solutions, or maybe multiple attempts to arrive at a solution are needed. One possible solution may be to enact regulations on population control to reign in the demand aspect, meanwhile, attacking the demand for energy aggressively and continuing to push the supply out. If it were to work, there would be a surplus of energy and a growing population that is steadily being controlled. It is not possible to stop a population from growing because technological advancements in medicine will always provide a way for humans to live longer. So, what governments need to do is keep their populations from spiraling out of control. While they do so, they need to also make sure that their citizens follow guidelines for energy use to reign in the sporadic growth of energy use; only creating allowances of large energy uses for businesses that are expanding. Another possible solution, or maybe more of an addition to current methods, is to place more emphasis on the carbon credit market and begin to break it down into local markets.
In my opinion I do believe that we as a society must come to a compromise and a solution in the way that we use our energy resources. As previously mentioned, the world population is to reach a great number of 9 billion people soon, so we must act upon the problem as soon as possible. I am proud to say, that my family and I are actually one of those people that are moving towards a greener use of resources and energy. My family is currently building a home, a passive house, which conserves a great amount of energy use, and our home will be strictly powered only by solar power panels. I believe that even such a small act, that my family is doing, is enough to set examples to the following neighbors in our neighborhood to start building homes that will use solar energy panels as well. Maybe it does only take one person to set an example, then some people to follow, and eventually the trend will continue. I also think that in places where there is no energy available, and there are plans to set it up, it should be pushed towards possibly setting up solar energy, if its sunny enough in those areas, wind energy if the area is windy and although the use of water plants for power is not exactly the best option for power and energy, i think it is a lot better than polluting our planet with other resource emissions.
As mentioned above, I do believe that our generation should be a trend setter generation, therefore holding many debates and campaigns towards green use of energy. Thru this process i think that even if it catches the eye of a few, its better than none at all. We have to start somewhere right?
The same idea kept popping up in my head as the professor was mentioning how expensive it is becoming to extract and process oil from within the earth. And that is stop using it. If it is becoming economically unpractical to extract oil from this point on, why dont we start using hydro energy. The earth is telling us to change our ways, we must change our practices because it is no longer practical to act the way we have. Secondly, when you mentioned that the U.S uses 20% of the earths energy output really didn't suprise me. That statistic is pretty embarrassing given how large our country is compared to the rest of the world. As a country we people consume to many things, and are spoiled by the amount of energy and resources we use daily. In order for this to stop, we must make gradual change. Cut back on resources slowly and not so dramatically that people will feel withdrawal
Americans are faced with many challenges, from unemployment and the economy, to infrastructure investment, to clean and affordable sources of electricity.Patric Moore says nuclear energy – is a solution that addresses multiple concerns at once. It provides long-term, high-paying careers, creates economic windfall in the surrounding communities, all while providing affordable and reliable clean air electricity to consumers. Despite many technical studies which asserted that the probability of a severe nuclear accident was low, numerous surveys showed that the public remained very deeply distrustful and uneasy about nuclear power. [One] reason why nuclear power is seen differently to other technologies lies in its parentage and birth. Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born of war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how much proponents try to separate the peaceful atom from the weapons atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the mind of the public. (Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 157).] According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favor and 49 percent oppose the promotion of increased use of nuclear power. The United States will need to increase the use of nuclear energy to achieve a sustainable energy future. (Meanwhile, while some European governments such as Germany are stuck adding fossil fuels and paying costly subsidies for renewable energy as a result of a move away from carbon-free nuclear). In the other hand, government-subsidized wind power may help accomplish a goal some environmentalists have sought for decades: kill off U.S. nuclear power plants while reducing reliance on electricity from burning coal (Johnson, Julie.) That’s the assessment of executives and utility experts after the U.S. wind-energy industry went on a $25 billion growth binge in 2012, racing to qualify for a federal tax credit that was set to expire at year’s end. Wind-generated electricity supplied about 3.4 percent of U.S. demand in 2012 and the share is projected to jump to 4.2 percent in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The argument presented in the video clearly shows that there will be no opportunity for a decreasing demand, to match the gap that will develop in the upcoming decades between the demand for oil and its supply. However, I do not think that nuclear energy is the way to reach this goal for meeting people’s needs. The population growth issue is an issue all on its own. If population were to be halted, or even decreased it would solve a lot of the earth’s problems. However, nuclear energy will only cause more trouble for the population. Nuclear energy is highly volatile, and if not produced properly, it can have dire effects on the population around it, as well as the environment. As we saw in the earthquake in Japan, the nuclear power plants that were destroyed had harmed the people and the land in that region. Harnessing such great power leaves a lot of leeway for mistakes, on a large scale, to happen. Unfortunately, I think the United States will go towards this option. The U.S. has a terrible reputation of being very politically dominant, and we leave no stone left unturned wen it comes to gaining any control, no matter what medium it may be. I think that the resources, and our will to dominate will not end at a terrible source such as nuclear, but it will extend far beyond that.
The argument presented in the video clearly shows that there will be no opportunity for a decreasing demand, to match the gap that will develop in the upcoming decades between the demand for oil and its supply. However, I do not think that nuclear energy is the way to reach this goal for meeting people’s needs. The population growth issue is an issue all on its own. If population were to be halted, or even decreased it would solve a lot of the earth’s problems. However, nuclear energy will only cause more trouble for the population. Nuclear energy is highly volatile, and if not produced properly, it can have dire effects on the population around it, as well as the environment. As we saw in the earthquake in Japan, the nuclear power plants that were destroyed had harmed the people and the land in that region. Harnessing such great power leaves a lot of leeway for mistakes, on a large scale, to happen. Unfortunately, I think the United States will go towards this option. The U.S. has a terrible reputation of being very politically dominant, and we leave no stone left unturned wen it comes to gaining any control, no matter what medium it may be. I think that the resources, and our will to dominate will not end at a terrible source such as nuclear, but it will extend far beyond that.
I think the biggest reason to oppose nuclear energy is that there are other ways to make electricity that do not pollute, do not cause cancer and are available today. Solar, wind and innovative low-impact hydro systems combined with efficient appliances, building design and construction that lower our energy requirements, can meet our needs. Radiation produced by nuclear waste is harmful to organisms, takes thousands of years to break down and has to be stored somewhere. This is hard to achieve without harming life or the planet. The radiation emitted from nuclear processes is high spectrum radiation, meaning that it can seriously harm human and other animal life if it is exposed to them. In the case of a natural disaster as evidenced by Japan's nuclear meltdown, radiation and risk of death to organisms increases. Sure, nuclear power is efficient and an amazing achievement, but with nuclear waste, risk of radiation, and so forth, the potential long-term cons seem to overpower the short-term pros. I think there are better alternatives around. Too many developed countries now depend too much on electricity. By reducing the amount of dependency on electricity, we can just rely on clean renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity, solar power, and wind power. Indeed nuclear power produces a tremendous amount of electricity, disasters do happen. If a nuclear power plant goes bad, the nuclear waste will be around the area and cause serious health issues.
Energy is a major issue that the United States faces. The US, however, does not seem to be properly handing this issue. As the demand for oil increases, the amount of oil left quickly decreases. The oil reserves left on our planet are almost at their end, which has caused major oil companies to find new alternatives to obtain this resource. With new techniques like fracking and tar sands, companies are finding ways to squeeze this planet dry. This abuse of trying to obtain resources has caused local water ways to become highly polluted and even the tap water of local homes to become undrinkable.
Renewable energy is quickly becoming one of the major sources of energy. With techniques like solar panels to harvest the energy from the sun and wind turbines to generate electricity from wind, energy is becoming easier to obtain with less environmental risk. Cities across the United States are turning to renewable energy to power their homes. In Rock Port, Missouri, they have become the first city to be 100% powered by wind energy. Four turbines lie within the city's limits on agricultural land. With a need for 13 kilowatts of energy each year, the four total turbines are able to generate 16 kilowatts of electricity a year.
I find the discussion of energy use and the future of energy sources very interesting. It seems like most of the general public are aware of the increasing demand and decreasing supply, yet no one is taking significant action to address it and the world is moving forward with the use and abuse of gas and oil. I am not sure what the solution to this would be, or if it has been invented yet, but I do not believe that the answers lie within nuclear energy.
ReplyDeleteThere are many pros and cons of nuclear power, yet I believe three major cons outweigh any pro that a supporter could imagine. One of these would be the waste associated with nuclear energy. The toxic mixture of uranium and plutonium that is used to generate power within nuclear plants need to be disposed of after the energy is obtained. This mixture is placed within a steel-lined concrete basin filled with water. Besides the obvious risk of the mixture remaining radioactive for thousands of years after it is discarded, the management of concrete basins would pose a huge strain on the public, which brings us back to many waste management issues. Integral Fast Reactors do ease this issue a bit by reducing the volume (this plant reprocesses some of the chemicals when possible) and toxicity (the mixture remains radioactive for hundreds of years) of the waste, but it does not eliminate either problem fully.
A related issue would be the water use by nuclear plants. Nuclear power plants use tremendous amounts of water to heat and cool their systems. Without this, the process would not be possible. There have been reports worldwide of nuclear plants' waste leeching into nearby waterways killing marine life and posing a health risk to the natural environment and humans alike. This also poses a risk to many sea animals and plankton because they are easily be sucked into the cooling water systems. Additionally, cooling systems currently do not filter heavy metals or salt when they are discharged into surrounding bodies of water, polluting the environment. Water is one of the earth's most precious resources and I do not think we can afford to damage it by increasing the frequency of pollution.
Finally, yet maybe most importantly, is the key ingredient of nuclear power, uranium. In the United States, uranium is imported. The increase in demand from nuclear power plants would require transportation to increase, magnifying many pollution issues already in existence. Most of all, uranium is a natural resource and it is limited. If we switched from traditional energy sources to nuclear energy sources, we would just be exchanging one limited resource for another. As soon as we begin to reach the peak of uranium reserves, we would be searching for another way to create energy.
The topic of renewable energy has been discussed various times and shot down repeatedly mostly because of the price and the impracticability of replacing fossil fuel energy with solar energy, impractical because everyone wants it to be done ASAP but the only effective method is replacing one thing at a time and no one wants to do it. That's why it was such a pleasure to read about Morocco's situation.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a story about someone saying they want to be green and everyone arguing until an agreement is reached two weeks later and then the plan goes into action. This is a story instead of a country who accepts energy is the problem, proposes a solution and is in the process of putting it in action. Corporate businesses and congressmen do not interfere. As shavon mentioned, it's an important issue but no one is striving to meet its demands. No one wants to. They're too busy thinking of the short run money instead of focusing on the company's future. Fossil fuel is in the past. A Hydroelectric future is a good alternative; we receive energy but we have to care for our ocean to maintain it, an achievement bonus for environmentalists everywhere. The only negative I can see from green energy is that it doesn't give ENOUGH energy. We require more of green energy alternatives to match one fossil fuel equivalent. And then when we get to the price...it's ludicrous that its cheaper to harm the planet than it is to help it. The only reason Morocco has succeeded in something we should have is because the decision was made and they are following it. There are no objections, no considering it for days--they want the solution and they're working for it. They want a future...but America just wants its profit. And that needs to stop for the sake of our planet and our selves.
Victoria Perez
I think price is a factor with renewable energy because they have not found ways to make it cheaper yet. I think once we give it a little time the cost of this will come down and we will be able to use more alternative energy sources. I think newer homes have a lot of way to conserve and use less energy. I know my parents moved from their house a few years ago to a house that was about the same size and the energy bill is now half, the house holds heat a lot better and has a lot of energy saving appliances. I believe if people start to update their houses and find ways to save this could also be a help.
Delete
ReplyDeleteMonday, March 25, 2013 7:39 AM
Developing countries have it easier to develop plans, laws, and products that will help with the energy problem compared to developed countries. This is because it cost a lot for developed countries to change laws and products that will help the energy problems. Developing countries are able to learn from developed countries' mistakes and hopeful make better solutions.
Energy plans can not be the same for every country. The video on earth we watched states how complex the earth is and any thing we do to solve the problems earth has will also be complex. When it comes to Eco friendly energy alternatives every town will have a different solution. This is also because some towns do not have the space for energy alternatives such as wind and solar energy. Some towns do not have rivers for a dam. Nuclear energy might be something that will fill the gap to conventional energy and alternative energy. However many people including me are uncomfortable with the idea of nuclear energy. As you can see there is no one solution or quick-fix to our problems. The sooner people learn this the sooner we can make many plans for alternative energy.
Thank you,
Boski Patel
As the professor mentioned in his video that the demand for oil will increase much faster than the supply of oil we will have availble to us by 2030 and there will be a shift to the very limited unconventional oil. The gap has to be plugged somewhere but it could be decrease the demand which depends on the population on Earth. Coal and nuclear energy are the two major options that we would be forced to turn towards. I dont think anyone in their right mind would want to be around coal or nuclear energy unless we plan on leaving in body suits by 2030. Its just a feasible option and is quite scary to think about.
ReplyDeleteRenewable energy has its own costs and benefits attached to it as it also releases hazardous checmicals and gases through the production cycle. When we saw the Nova movie, we saw how the earth uses energy from the sun, water, wind and lightning strikes to maintain fuction. I think its time to maybe explore such options even further so they are both sustainable and green. Maybe energy consumption needs to be quota offed. Seeing as the earth is getting warmer, we wont be needed to heat using oil, rather will be looking for ways to cool off.
It sure is something to talk about. It kind of makes you wonder if its a good thing gas prices are higher. We would possibly waste more fuel if the prices were cheaper, and yes I mean waste. People are more reserved about where they drive or what kind of vehicles they are going to buy because of the prices of fuel. In return we are not abusing and using more fuel. I think it might sound silly and I don't really like the idea but if prices rise we can possibly use even less fuel.
DeleteThere is no doubt that we need to find another energy source to use but I am not sure that nuclear energy is the best alternative. As mentioned in earlier posts, there is a lot of waste in the use of nuclear energy not to mention the potential dangers associated with its use. That being said, we also cannot depend on agricultural alternatives such as corn. Brazil for instance has made impressive strides in the use of and transition to ethanol. The transition has been a remarkably fast one partially due to Brazil’s economic position as a developing country. Because Brazil’s efforts are still so new we have little knowledge of the effects it is having on the demand for soil and food (both of which will increase as the need for oil increases). Another alternative could be wind energy. The major challenge there is that wind does not produce as much energy as fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, I saw an interesting article about strides made in energy saving devices: http://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/electricity-usage#15
I am always skeptical when I hear/read topics about energy and sustainability, especially when it is in reference to developing nations. Debates, awareness campaigns, and research have been going on for many years with little to show for it. As another student pointed out, the main problem here is lack of economic incentive to act. That has always been one of the biggest barriers to change for greening different industries. Looking at change from a behavioral aspect, it only happens when there is great trauma or personal gain. The way I see it all boils down to human nature. I feel that is the fundamental, underlying issue in all of this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlternative energy is a very tough process. There are a lot of ways we can help the environment and the world is slowly working its way to become more sufficient. I think smaller towns in the United States or even the world can find various ways to have alternative energy sources. I live in a town near a decent size river and a good amount of empty land. I always believed we should have some type of wind turbines, but i know people would complain that they were eye soars and would look ugly. Its sad but true people in my town and along with other places just complain and dislike any type of change. I also think everyone should be given a tax break or something significant to start to use solar energy. This is something that is available to people but not so cheap. I do not think nuclear power is the best idea nor would it be suitable everywhere.
ReplyDeleteVirginia Macdougall
ReplyDeleteI believe that the future of energy and energy sources is a very important topic, but also is a highly debatable issue. As my class mate said, there has been a significant rise is the realization by the general public that we are abusing gas and oil everyday, but very little action has been taken. The movement to nuclear and coal energy is e next step being looked at, but I do not think that either of these are the answers. Nuclear and coal energy both pose and will cause huge problems and massive amounts of pollution on our earth in the future. I believe that the switch in energy should be made to renewable sources, such as solar and wind power. Wouldn't it be nice if it was that easy? The problem with this switch is the costs and unreliability of the sources; the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, so there are debates that building turbines and using solar panels is more costly. Another argument is that turbines are not aesthetically pleasing and may kill migrating birds. As you can see, no matter the energy source there will always be some debate on why it is no good, the only thing to do is weigh out the cost and benefits. The benefits of renewable energy far outweigh the environmental costs of nuclear and coal energy.
In the audio clip, it is mentioned that electric vehicles and standard gas cars both produce the waste of .4lbs of carbon dioxide per mile. While this is a discouraging fact for anyone who desires a smaller personal carbon footprint, at least purchasing an electric vehicle is a display of values. The consumer values the importance of lessening Western society's dependence on oil. The truth about fossil fuel is that it is an ancient resource that is finite and will soon end. The function of capitalism is that businesses will never change their products unless they see trends in consumer purchases and demands. If there is a demand for vehicles that require less fossil fuel, more development and research in environmentally conscious vehicles will likely ensue. As I mentioned earlier, it is a shame that conventional gas vehicles and electric vehicles produce the same amount of waste. But if a driver is going to produce the same amount of carbon regardless, perhaps a good starting point would be lessening our dependency of fossil fuels.
ReplyDeleteIf New York State can truly become fossil fuel free by 2030, this would be a wonderful step in a greener economy. Just like the XL size soda ban in New York City, no limitations will go without protest. Ultimately, people don't need large amounts of soda, and people don't need to burn fossil fuels at rapid rates. People don't like the idea of their freedom being limited, but sometimes certain freedoms that are assumed to be inalienable are detrimental to everyone else.
Very rarely does a problem only have one solution. You mentioned that some have argued that instead of trying to increase the supply of energy, maybe we should try to reign in the demand curve for energy. However, that argument was countered with the fact that the population is expected to reached a staggering nine billion people. So maybe this is one of those problems that has multiple solutions, or maybe multiple attempts to arrive at a solution are needed. One possible solution may be to enact regulations on population control to reign in the demand aspect, meanwhile, attacking the demand for energy aggressively and continuing to push the supply out. If it were to work, there would be a surplus of energy and a growing population that is steadily being controlled. It is not possible to stop a population from growing because technological advancements in medicine will always provide a way for humans to live longer. So, what governments need to do is keep their populations from spiraling out of control. While they do so, they need to also make sure that their citizens follow guidelines for energy use to reign in the sporadic growth of energy use; only creating allowances of large energy uses for businesses that are expanding. Another possible solution, or maybe more of an addition to current methods, is to place more emphasis on the carbon credit market and begin to break it down into local markets.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I do believe that we as a society must come to a compromise and a solution in the way that we use our energy resources. As previously mentioned, the world population is to reach a great number of 9 billion people soon, so we must act upon the problem as soon as possible. I am proud to say, that my family and I are actually one of those people that are moving towards a greener use of resources and energy. My family is currently building a home, a passive house, which conserves a great amount of energy use, and our home will be strictly powered only by solar power panels. I believe that even such a small act, that my family is doing, is enough to set examples to the following neighbors in our neighborhood to start building homes that will use solar energy panels as well. Maybe it does only take one person to set an example, then some people to follow, and eventually the trend will continue. I also think that in places where there is no energy available, and there are plans to set it up, it should be pushed towards possibly setting up solar energy, if its sunny enough in those areas, wind energy if the area is windy and although the use of water plants for power is not exactly the best option for power and energy, i think it is a lot better than polluting our planet with other resource emissions.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned above, I do believe that our generation should be a trend setter generation, therefore holding many debates and campaigns towards green use of energy. Thru this process i think that even if it catches the eye of a few, its better than none at all. We have to start somewhere right?
Magdalena Strama
The same idea kept popping up in my head as the professor was mentioning how expensive it is becoming to extract and process oil from within the earth. And that is stop using it. If it is becoming economically unpractical to extract oil from this point on, why dont we start using hydro energy. The earth is telling us to change our ways, we must change our practices because it is no longer practical to act the way we have.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, when you mentioned that the U.S uses 20% of the earths energy output really didn't suprise me. That statistic is pretty embarrassing given how large our country is compared to the rest of the world. As a country we people consume to many things, and are spoiled by the amount of energy and resources we use daily. In order for this to stop, we must make gradual change. Cut back on resources slowly and not so dramatically that people will feel withdrawal
Americans are faced with many challenges, from unemployment and the economy, to infrastructure investment, to clean and affordable sources of electricity.Patric Moore says nuclear energy – is a solution that addresses multiple concerns at once. It provides long-term, high-paying careers, creates economic windfall in the surrounding communities, all while providing affordable and reliable clean air electricity to consumers.
ReplyDeleteDespite many technical studies which asserted that the probability of a severe nuclear accident was low, numerous surveys showed that the public remained very deeply distrustful and uneasy about nuclear power. [One] reason why nuclear power is seen differently to other technologies lies in its parentage and birth. Nuclear energy was conceived in secrecy, born of war, and first revealed to the world in horror. No matter how much proponents try to separate the peaceful atom from the weapons atom, the connection is firmly embedded in the mind of the public. (Hoffman (1996). Governing the Atom: The Politics of Risk, Transaction Publishers, p. 157).] According to a 2012 Pew Research Center poll, 44 percent of Americans favor and 49 percent oppose the promotion of increased use of nuclear power. The United States will need to increase the use of nuclear energy to achieve a sustainable energy future. (Meanwhile, while some European governments such as Germany are stuck adding fossil fuels and paying costly subsidies for renewable energy as a result of a move away from carbon-free nuclear).
In the other hand, government-subsidized wind power may help accomplish a goal some environmentalists have sought for decades: kill off U.S. nuclear power plants while reducing reliance on electricity from burning coal (Johnson, Julie.) That’s the assessment of executives and utility experts after the U.S. wind-energy industry went on a $25 billion growth binge in 2012, racing to qualify for a federal tax credit that was set to expire at year’s end. Wind-generated electricity supplied about 3.4 percent of U.S. demand in 2012 and the share is projected to jump to 4.2 percent in 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
The argument presented in the video clearly shows that there will be no opportunity for a decreasing demand, to match the gap that will develop in the upcoming decades between the demand for oil and its supply. However, I do not think that nuclear energy is the way to reach this goal for meeting people’s needs. The population growth issue is an issue all on its own. If population were to be halted, or even decreased it would solve a lot of the earth’s problems. However, nuclear energy will only cause more trouble for the population. Nuclear energy is highly volatile, and if not produced properly, it can have dire effects on the population around it, as well as the environment. As we saw in the earthquake in Japan, the nuclear power plants that were destroyed had harmed the people and the land in that region. Harnessing such great power leaves a lot of leeway for mistakes, on a large scale, to happen. Unfortunately, I think the United States will go towards this option. The U.S. has a terrible reputation of being very politically dominant, and we leave no stone left unturned wen it comes to gaining any control, no matter what medium it may be. I think that the resources, and our will to dominate will not end at a terrible source such as nuclear, but it will extend far beyond that.
ReplyDeleteThe argument presented in the video clearly shows that there will be no opportunity for a decreasing demand, to match the gap that will develop in the upcoming decades between the demand for oil and its supply. However, I do not think that nuclear energy is the way to reach this goal for meeting people’s needs. The population growth issue is an issue all on its own. If population were to be halted, or even decreased it would solve a lot of the earth’s problems. However, nuclear energy will only cause more trouble for the population. Nuclear energy is highly volatile, and if not produced properly, it can have dire effects on the population around it, as well as the environment. As we saw in the earthquake in Japan, the nuclear power plants that were destroyed had harmed the people and the land in that region. Harnessing such great power leaves a lot of leeway for mistakes, on a large scale, to happen. Unfortunately, I think the United States will go towards this option. The U.S. has a terrible reputation of being very politically dominant, and we leave no stone left unturned wen it comes to gaining any control, no matter what medium it may be. I think that the resources, and our will to dominate will not end at a terrible source such as nuclear, but it will extend far beyond that.
ReplyDeleteI think the biggest reason to oppose nuclear energy is that there are other ways to make electricity that do not pollute, do not cause cancer and are available today. Solar, wind and innovative low-impact hydro systems combined with efficient appliances, building design and construction that lower our energy requirements, can meet our needs.
ReplyDeleteRadiation produced by nuclear waste is harmful to organisms, takes thousands of years to break down and has to be stored somewhere. This is hard to achieve without harming life or the planet. The radiation emitted from nuclear processes is high spectrum radiation, meaning that it can seriously harm human and other animal life if it is exposed to them. In the case of a natural disaster as evidenced by Japan's nuclear meltdown, radiation and risk of death to organisms increases. Sure, nuclear power is efficient and an amazing achievement, but with nuclear waste, risk of radiation, and so forth, the potential long-term cons seem to overpower the short-term pros.
I think there are better alternatives around. Too many developed countries now depend too much on electricity. By reducing the amount of dependency on electricity, we can just rely on clean renewable energy sources such as hydroelectricity, solar power, and wind power. Indeed nuclear power produces a tremendous amount of electricity, disasters do happen. If a nuclear power plant goes bad, the nuclear waste will be around the area and cause serious health issues.
Energy is a major issue that the United States faces. The US, however, does not seem to be properly handing this issue. As the demand for oil increases, the amount of oil left quickly decreases. The oil reserves left on our planet are almost at their end, which has caused major oil companies to find new alternatives to obtain this resource. With new techniques like fracking and tar sands, companies are finding ways to squeeze this planet dry. This abuse of trying to obtain resources has caused local water ways to become highly polluted and even the tap water of local homes to become undrinkable.
ReplyDeleteRenewable energy is quickly becoming one of the major sources of energy. With techniques like solar panels to harvest the energy from the sun and wind turbines to generate electricity from wind, energy is becoming easier to obtain with less environmental risk. Cities across the United States are turning to renewable energy to power their homes. In Rock Port, Missouri, they have become the first city to be 100% powered by wind energy. Four turbines lie within the city's limits on agricultural land. With a need for 13 kilowatts of energy each year, the four total turbines are able to generate 16 kilowatts of electricity a year.