Renewable Energy Future

Because this is our final civic issues blog, I wanted to discuss the implementation of renewables in a larger sense, and some misconceptions that people have with them.  Firstly, and most worryingly, the general population, even many who support renewable energies, believe that alternative energy has all the potential to reconstruct the current energy grid at the modern-day level of consumption and growth.  While this would be utopian, most research concludes that this is simply not feasible. We are far too wasteful of a society to maintain our level of energy consumption from renewables, and in the upcoming future, from conventional resources.

This is very displeasing to people; our everyday luxuries have become so commonplace that they begin to seem like necessities, which is just simply not the case.  The reality of the situation really isn’t that dire if we consider very simple ways that we can reduce consumption; by utilizing natural sunlight during the day rather than an excessive amount of lighting, and by being diligent about turning lights off when you no longer need them.  Or what about unplugging computer and phone chargers when said electronics are done being charged?  Phantom charging, or the continued consumption of energy in the form of vacant chargers, on average, accounts for 648 kwH of unused energy per month, a sizeable portion of energy that is being wasted entirely.   The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that on average, 75 percent of the electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off (“Take Control”).  Maybe cutting your shower time by one minute? The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that showers account for the largest portion of domestic water use, consuming over 1.2 trillion gallons of water a pear, or about 17 percent of residential water use. (Bugnion).

There are so many small changes in consumption that can be made domestically that could drastically alter our energy consumption.  And these changes are totally self-initiated.  While many civilians disapprove of industry’s negligent environmental practices, it is much more difficult to get this sector to reform their practices; and unfortunately, the catalyst to this change is often a catastrophe.  Therefore, it is more difficult for the individual consumer to effect change in that respect.   But we can, and all have the responsibility, to be conscious of our own actions and their effects.

We can also find higher efficiency alternatives to traditional domestic technologies.  For example, low-flow showerheads are becoming increasingly popular in the United States, and save, on average, 24 gallons of water per shower, or about 8,760 gallons of water per year for each person.  High efficiency refrigerators and washing machines are a greater investment than a showerhead replacement, but can reduce consumption drastically. Efficient washing machines reduce water consumption by 50 percent and energy consumption by 37 percent.  EnergyStar efficient refrigerators reduce energy consumption between 20 and 40 percent (“Tips: Kitchen”).  If the high initial cost of an EnergyStar-rated appliance is too much, other simple actions such as using high efficiency detergent, which can clean clothes in cold-water rinses, and air-drying clothing can reduce consumption.

However, we should be wary of relying solely on implementing higher efficiency technologies, because of a phenomenon known as Jeven’s paradox.  The economic principle states that the influx of higher efficiency technology paradoxically increases consumption of a certain good (“Jevon’s Paradox”).  From an economic perspective, it makes a lot of sense. Improved efficiency often lowers the unit cost of consuming a good.  Therefore, in basic laws of supply and demand, when the cost of the good lowers, the demand increases and vice versa.  As a result, the increased demand creates increased consumption, rather than the intended outcome of reduction.  Put the theory into a driving situation; I currently drive my mom’s old car, a very stereotypical soccer- mom car, (that was great for toting around my sister and me and hoards of friends around when we were younger), and which is an absolute gas-guzzler.  Because it brings me to near tears every time I have to fill up the 21-gallon tank and kiss on average $60 away, I am pretty conscious of how far I drive and only like to drive if needed.  But, if I suddenly drove a more efficient car, driving unnecessarily would not phase me nearly as much, and this could create the potential for my consumption to actually increase, or not decrease very drastically.  Therefore, we should focus on reducing our base consumption first and foremost.

This is the initial premise of implementing renewable energy on a larger scale; with more conscious consumption, alternative energy integration can fulfill the world’s energy needs.  The second misconception about alternative energy is that there should be an end-all-be-all resource that will solve the energy crisis.  This is not the case as none of the renewable energies are currently efficient enough to solely power the grid, and they are difficult to store and transport.  A change in the infrastructure from mass, central power plants into smaller, localized power plants will need to occur for true development. And the use of hybrid technologies that incorporate multiple alternative resources, such as solar power during the day and wind power at night, will realistically serve our energy needs.  While this change in infrastructure will be expensive, it will be vastly less expensive and more sustainable than the mass crisis resolution that will need to be enacted if we continue to consume nonrenewable resources.  The energy future does look bleak at this time, but there is absolutely no reason that it needs to continue in this fashion; it all starts with a change in perspective.

To see what your family is consuming check out this carbon footprint calculator and power profiler!

carbon footprint calculator: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/ind-calculator.html

power profiler:  http://oaspub.epa.gov/powpro/ept_pack.charts

 

Works Cited:

 

Bugnion, Veronique. “Water Waste: Your Shower’s Dirty Little Secret.” RSS. Social     Media Today, n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

 

“Jevons Paradox.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 16 Apr. 2014. Web. 17 Apr.       2014.

 

“Take Control & Save.” Take Control & Save. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Apr. 2014.

 

“Tips: Kitchen Appliances.” Energy.gov. U.S. Department of Energy, n.d. Web. 17 Apr.            2014.

 

Smog

I grew up in Pittsburgh; the Steel City that only 50 years ago boomed due to the coal industry, but has felt repercussions from the industry to this day.  My grandfather used to always tell me that when commuting into the city for the workday, he would need to have two white shirts prepared: one to wear into the city and the next to change into upon arrival at the workplace because of the massive amount of smog that polluted the city’s air.

While Pittsburgh, along with most developed cities and nations have resolved the issue of widespread smog, it remains a prevalent worry in some of the most developed urban areas in the world, such as London, and increasingly in the developing nations, specifically China (McKirdy 1).  Today in the United Kingdom, an unusually heavy incidence of smog is travelling throughout due to southerly Sahara winds that carry the particulate matter.  On a scale of 10, the air pollution levels are predicted to reach the 8 or 9 concentration level in a large part of southern England, and peaking at 10 on the southern coast.  The smog density that is occurring is predicated by a restriction of personal transportation use several weeks ago due to high levels of pollution (Halliday 1).

In fact, the levels of particulate matter were rapidly increasing about two weeks ago in Britain, though the British public was not informed of the issue.  Dr. Ian Mudway of King’s College London stated, “The BBC ran stories about the pollution in Paris and Milan, but no one thought it worthwhile to inform the British public that they were being exposed to dangerous levels of fine particulates” (qtd in Halliday 1).  While there are a multitude of contributing factors to the unusually high incidence of smog, many are urging that the United Kingdom adopt stricter air pollution regulations, and advocate for reform on a wider scale, through European Union environmental laws (Halliday 1). For, smog, like many other environmental repercussions, is not something that can be contained to the perpetrating nation’s borders.  Therefore, in order to create effective reduction, wide-scale regulations must be adopted.  As a result of the incident, Britain now faces fines of up to $300 million dollars and trials prosecuting the lack of air quality reform, despite 15 years of cautions and delay periods allotted to the federal government (Halliday 1).

The smog pollution problem is even more pronounced in quickly developing nations, most notably China.  The economic boom due to exponential industry growth is the main factor in the heavy concentration of air pollutants (McKirdy 1).  Most industrial developments require large electricity capacity as well as heavy turbine and steam-powered equipment, powered mainly by coal and other fossil fuels.  The burning of said conventional resources releases particulates into the air, most notably nitrous oxides that are emitted when coal is crushed into a fine dust, which burns more readily than solid pieces (Environmental Impacts of Coal Power).  The nitrogen oxides released are the main causes of smog, and can cause chronic respiratory dysfunction for those with no preexisting breathing problems and can exacerbate the symptoms of those with one (Environmental Impacts of Coal Power 1).

Attempts to reduce the issue include reform to China’s emission standards for several heavy industries, notably cement production, an industry that China implements the most in the world (McKirdy 1).  Beijing has vowed to invest approximately 125 billion dollars into air-cleaning initiatives by 2017, such as economic incentives for reduction of air pollution from factories, subsidies to electric car owners and more (McKirdy 1).

There are many technologies that can make coal burning cleaner including coal washing, a process that removes particulate matter before it is burned, wet scrubbers, which remove sulfur dioxide from the flue gas emitted after the coal is burned, and electrostatic precipitators which charge particles in an electric field, then collect them on magnetic plates  (Dowdey 1). Though these technologies sound promising, they are quite expensive to implement, and therefore without regulatory mandate, are often not used and are ineffective to combatting the pollution.  Renewable technologies are a favorable solution because they produce energy with significantly fewer air emissions, or none at all, as is the case with solar and wind power.  And while China is the largest producer of renewable technology, it exports almost all of it and therefore it has a near negligible implementation in the domestic grid.  A heavier implementation of such technologies, in conjunction with coal use, will provide significantly cleaner airs, bluer skies and a return to the concept of “taking in fresh air”.

 

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Dowdey, Sarah. “What Is Clean Coal Technology?”HowStuffWorks.       HowStuffWorks.com, 18 July 2007. Web.  02 Apr. 2014.

 

“Environmental Impacts of Coal Power: air Pollution.” Union of Concerned Scientists.             Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.

 

Halliday, Josh, and Mark Tran. “UK Smog Alert: Vulnerable People Advised to Stay   Indoors.” Theguardian.com.  Guardian News and Media, 02 Apr. 2014. Web.        02 Apr. 2014.

 

McKirdy, Euan. “China Looks for Blue-Sky Solutions as Smog Worsens.” CNN. Cable              News Network, 25 Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Apr. 2014.

Fracking in Europe

 

The conflict between Russia and the Ukraine exemplifies the highly integrated nature of the modern energy crisis, and the resulting complexity of resolving any issues caused by it.  Because the use of energy in the modern world is deeply interwoven with the political and commercial sector, and because we as a society have become wholly dependent on an increasing influx of energy to sustain our quality of life, the energy crisis is not simply one of environmental science.  Europe currently imports at least one quarter of its natural gas from Russia, causing the entire continent to be extremely dependent on a fairly unstable state (Werth 2).  This has created increased interest in hydraulic fracking in a larger portion of the continent.  However, the current fracking industry is nonexistent in comparison to the US’s developed industry.

Poland, the nation most ardent about increased fracking measures, currently has only located and extracted gas from 50 wells, fewer than the number of new wells created in a shale-heavy state in America per month (Werth 3).  A large factor that halts the fracking industry in Europe is the private property legislation.  In the United States, the minerals within the soil below a designated area of property belongs in part to said owner.  Because of this, landowners gain revenue streams from the initial sale of the land as well as from the extraction of minerals through the fracking process.  In Europe, the soil below a landowner’s plot is solely government property, drastically reducing incentive to sell the land for the purpose of such a controversial drilling technique (Werth 3).

Hydraulic fracking is a relatively new technology that has enabled the world to access natural gas that was unavailable for consumption 35 years ago.  Its use of horizontal drilling and heavy water pressure allows the extraction of natural gas that settles between the layers of shale stone, gas that could not be attained with traditional vertical drilling processes (United States EPA).  Because it is a fairly new technology that continues to be developed, many of its environmental consequences are currently unclear.  However, there are several irrefutable risks.  These include depletion of surface and groundwater supplies because of the high volume of pressurized water used in the fracking process, contamination of groundwater sources from fracking spills and shattered rock particles, and air pollution from the release of volatile organic compounds and greenhouse gases with the emission of natural gas (United States EPA).

There are apparent environmental consequences to hydraulic fracking.  But due to the current European crisis, the push for any form of energy independence from Russia has been expedited.  Fracking is the most viable of the options, and has garnered support from leading nations outside of Europe, most notably the United States.  America cites diplomatic motives for the foreign support; increasing shale fracking as a means of creating energy independence from Russia (Werth 3).  The support for the industry can be seen in Britain, who recently denied proposed European Union amendments to increase regulation of fracking on the continent, arguing that,  “existing rules are strict enough to keep fracking safe and that new rules would delay investment and increase costs” (Carrington 1).

.           Economically, there is also increasing pressure to remain competitive with the US natural gas industry, one that has become almost entirely self-sufficient, importing less than two percent of its natural gas.  As a result of fracking implementation, natural gas prices have fallen to lower than twenty five percent that of Europe’s prices.  And the fracking has become extensive enough that the United States is looking to export a portion of its extracts in the near future thereby penetrating foreign markets and increasing competition within the industry (Werth 2).

Hydraulic fracking is an extremely complex technology with many intricate effects.  Unforeseen environmental impacts continue to emerge as the technology becomes more prevalent.  But, it has made the United States almost entirely self-sufficient in the natural gas sector, an energy source used mostly in the domestic setting.  While it is a temporary fix, just as every other conventional energy source is, it does have the potential to quell the severity of international conflicts.  If it can reduce the risk of conflict in the future, is it worth the environmental impacts that it will inflict?  Or is it simply another temporary bandage on the wounded environmental state that will cause exponentially more damage in the future than it does good in the present?  Let me know what you think!

 

 

Works Cited:

 

Carrington, Damian. “UK Defeats European Bid for Fracking Regulations.”      Theguardian.com. Guardian News and Media, 14 Jan. 2014. Web. 19 Mar.    2014.

 

United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Hydraulic Fracturing                                                  

Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.

 

Werth, Christopher. “Seeking Energy Independence, Europe Faces Heated Fracking            Debate.” NPR. NPR, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014

Security Concerns for Non-Renewables

While the intrinsic plight for the ecological welfare of the globe is rarely enough to motivate people to bike to work or cut down on toilet paper use, there are many other motivating factors that make the transition to renewable energy much more valid from a humanistic perspective.  These perspectives are often neglected because they have burdensome consequences, or because we are simply unaware of their current and future impacts on our quality of life.

One of these factors that we don’t immediately consider is the impact that conventional oil has on our domestic security.  Upon first glance, there may not be an observable link, but because America relies so heavily on OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, to garner oil, our international relations are often dictated by the need to maintain international oil trade agreements.  Also, our military relies on oil resources to power a majority of their defensive weaponry, and are a major consumer of oil in the US, spending over $17 billion on fuel in 2010. Every $10 increase in the price of a barrel of oil costs the military well over a billion dollars in expenses (Leggett 206).   According to ClimateProgress, “the US Military is the single largest consumer of energy and oil on the planet.”

And the price of oil is historically variable; it fluctuates over a wide scale given many factors, some of which include the projected availability of drillable resources as well as the political standing of the exporting nation.  The potentially volatile effects of our oil conundrum can therefore be readily seen.  Oil not only has the ability to send nations to war, but it also has the potential to paralyze a nations defense.  Without the jet fuel to power air turbines, the Airforce becomes landlocked and without the mass amounts of fuel needed to power submarines; some of the navy’s key surveillance technologies are out of commission.  Therefore, in recent years, the US armed forces have been advocating a reduction in the consumption of conventional fuel and the integration of alternative resources into military as well as civilian technology.  A 2009 report by the Military Advisory Board of the Center for Naval Analysis suggested a 30 percent reduction in the overall American oil consumption (Leggett 206).

The incredible amount of money spent on foreign oil imports is also a security concern.  For, a portion of the money spent is fed directly into the hands of anti-American terrorist organizations.  Therefore, the government is essentially funding that which it expends vast budgetary resources to eradicate.  It is therefore clear that the continued use of non-renewables pose much larger threats to the welfare of society than just the extinction of polar bears, though this holds merit in its own right.  Delivering such oil to different military bases internationally is perilous and has cost the military far too many soldier lives.  A Marine Corps study concluded that approximately 10 percent of the Iraq War casualties were a direct result of fuel and water convoys (Leggett 207).

Lastly, the concern for climate change is at the front of the military agenda as the rising water levels due to melting glacier caps could have catastrophic displacement effects for citizens that inhabit coastal areas.

So what is being done to combat the issue?  The Military has started a “Net Zero” Campaign in which they vow to produce as much energy as they consume, for mostly stability and cost reasons.  In order to accomplish this initiative, the military is implementing solar technology on the roofs of tents, on radio towers and even on the outside of soldiers’ backpacks.  They are also coating tents with an insulating liquid so that cool air, produced by air conditioning units, does not easily escape.  The Department of Defense is now implementing a case-by-case analysis of bases and their energy needs and potential for consumption reduction.  Energy experts go to the camps and interact with the military personnel to assess the inefficiencies of the current systems, and to teach the men and women at the base ways to use conventional energy more efficiently as well as ways to use the newly-implemented renewable technologies (ClimateProgress 1).  ClimateProgress reports that while many of the personnel were initially skeptical of the new technologies, they were surprisingly impressed with their user-friendliness as well as their reliability.  Captain Kerry Gilpin stated that, ““The real reason we’re doing this is very simple. Secretary Mabus has set two priorities: energy security and energy independence. … Basically we don’t like having vulnerable supply lines … that are not difficult to disrupt. All threats, right? Natural disasters, manmade — anything that could threaten our ability to do our critical missions presents a problem for us.”  Therefore, energy efficiency is starting to be taken seriously in the defense arena; I can only hope that it will begin to in the wider political arena soon as well.

 

 Works Cited:

Koronowski, Ryan. “Why The U.S. Military Is Pursuing Energy Efficiency,    Renewables And Net-Zero Energy Initiatives.” ClimateProgress. N.p.,      n.d.  Web. 26 Feb. 2014. Website

Leggett, Jeremy. “The Power of Context: Energy and Security.” The Energy         of Nations: Risk Blindness and the Road to Renaissance. The Energy          of Nations: Routledge, 2013. 206-07. Print.

Introduction to the Issue of Environmental Sustainability

In the modern world, the consumption of energy is central to the way in which we leave and not only to the prospering of society, but also more fundamentally to the survival of modern civilization, as we know it.  The energy crises causes vast conflict throughout the world, and drastically affects both domestic and foreign policies of most nations, as most of the traditional fuel resources are located in the Middle East and Northern Africa.  Currently, America accounts for 22 percent of the world’s petroleum consumption, amassing approximately 6.83 billion barrels of crude oil per year.  And approximately 40 percent of the petroleum consumed is foreign, accounting for a large portion of the total 57 percent of crude oil that is imported every year.  Though this percentage has been lowering since 1991, due to the several oil shortage crises in the seventies and the nineties, it is still blatant that America depends on foreign oil imports to function (“How Dependent is US…”).  The use of traditional fossil fuels, (coal, oil and natural gas) accounts for 85 percent of America’s energy needs (“Global Warming Science”). Therefore, traditional energy resources play a key role in the functioning of day-to-day society, as well as the progress of the nation.  For, they create the power required to create and sustain cutting-edge technologies.

America’s energy consumption is not only an economic and political concern; it is also an imminent environmental worry.  The current combustion of fossil fuels, namely coal and petroleum, account for a multitude of environmental degradations including acid mine drainage, thermal pollution, and most ominously, climate change (“Impacts and Adaptations”).  In the past century, the Earth’s temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, and is projected to rise by another 2 in the course of the next century.  While this incremental increase in temperature appears frivolous, the global temperature is highly sensitive and changes such as these would have extreme effects on climates worldwide.  Though a small degree of climate change is due to natural occurrences, this degree of increase is due largely to human emissions, namely combustion of fossil fuels.  This produces mass amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that entrap heat in the earth’s atmosphere and cause the world’s temperature to rise (“Impacts and Adaptations”).  The increase in global temperature will have major impacts on all areas, including increased rainfall due to heavy flooding, increased aridity in dry climates, producing drought, and drowning of coastal territories as ocean levels rise due to the melting of glacier caps (“Impacts and Adaptations”).  And yet, there is still debate as to whether or not global warming is a legitimate concern, and if so, if human abuse is the cause of such potentially catastrophic environmental effects.

There are two main frames of mind in regards to the global warming debate; one insists that the continuation of carbon emissions at such an astronomical level will destroy the homes and lives of millions of people worldwide.  Others simply dismiss the effect of greenhouse gases on climate changes, or deny the existence of climate change altogether, arguing that a reduction in fossil fuel combustion will destroy the energy-dominated market in which we all work and consume.  And many suggest that because of the resulting gridlock between views, neither address the main concern: the protection and maintenance of the environment in which we all reside (Sarewitz 3).  For ultimately, it is we who will feel any consequences of any environmental change, be it because of global warming or not.  And humans are extremely reluctant to change, especially those involving the inordinately powerful and uncontrolled circumstances of Mother Nature.  Senator Timothy Wirth of Colorado, stated in 1988, “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”  (Sarewitz 6).  But this was in the eighties.  Since then, there have been increased evidence climate change is indeed occurring, and is a product of human manipulation the natural world.  This belief held by the majority of the scientific community.  So why are we still arguing over whether or not the scientific evidence is simply a corrupt falsification of facts by left leaning tree huggers?  In this blog, I would like to focus on the factors that influence such polarized beliefs, as well as alternative energies and their potentials and drawbacks.  For, solving the environmental crisis is extremely complex, but there is immense room for improvement.

 

 

 

 

Works Cited:

 

“Global Warming Science.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists, 5 Sept. 2013. Web. 02 Feb. 2014.

 

“How Dependent Is the US on Foreign Oil.” U.S. Energy             Information Administration, n.d. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.               <http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=32&t=6>.

 

“Impacts & Adaptation.” EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, 9 Sept. 2013. Web.            04 Feb. 2014.

\

 Sarewitz, Daniel, and Roger Pielke, Jr. “Breaking the Global Warming Gridlock.”

The Atlantic Monthly. The Atlantic  Monthly Company, n.d. Web. 05 Feb.         2014.