The Next Step Towards a More Sustainable Future – Blog Post 10 - September 30

            This week I read a variety of short essays in The Energy Reader about how humans can live more sustainably.  Each essay argued what the most important thing to do is in order to help make the world or the United States more sustainable.  With all of these options, which is the most important?  Where do we start?

Robert E. King essentially argued that capping the grid is the most important thing that can be done to help the energy crisis because it will stop the ever-growing American need for energy.  He points out that technology will not get us out of the energy crisis because of Jevon’s paradox.  This paradox basically states that as things become more energy efficient, they are cheaper to use and people will use them more.  As a result of this, people will continue to use the same amount of energy, or even more, because of the perceived or actual efficiency increases.  The laws of diminishing returns again applies here, where it becomes harder and harder to make technologies more efficient after the “low-hanging fruit” are picked.  Efficiency will eventually plateau as times go on.  The argument that conservation is the most important thing is strong, but his method of obtaining conservation is debatable.  King recommends a cap on energy, where the United States would stop growing its energy economy.  If new alternative energies were added, old power plants would be decommissioned.  This not only seems like a near-impossible goal to lobby for, but it also may not be considered fair by many Americans.  Americans today would have to be very very convinced of the negative effects of climate change before they would even consider limiting their energy usage in a mandatory fashion. 

Shiela Bowers and Bill Powers argue for more local energy generation as the centerpiece of America’s energy policy.  They argue that it increases property values, leads to less environmental impacts because there are less power lines, more secure energy system, and because it benefits local jobs.  Although alternative energy in general is good, Bowers and Powers argue that there are many negative impacts to centralized power in general and that localized is the best way for America to become more energy sustainable.

Other authors focused on lowering our energy economy through more indirect ways.  Harvey Locke made the argument that half of the land and water on Earth should be protected, which would not only be ecologically and aesthetically pleasing, but it would also limit how many resources our energy economy and regular economy could use.  Although the thought is great, this argument seems ideal at best.  First of all, it would take international efforts and regulation across the globe to get this done.  Second of all, it would probably lead to weaker, developing countries being exploited and the most civilized ones being saved.  Most of all, businesses would pick the most exploitable areas, and would push the government for new laws to allow them wherever they please if they run out, just as they do today.  Although Locke makes a good argument, I do not think fighting for conservation of land and water is the best solution to our problem. 

Bill McKibben wrote more of a step-by-step approach to ending global warming.  He argued that people need to spread the word about climate change, create strict goals on what the people want to change, and create a movement to fight for those goals and to show the government that changes need to be made.  It needs to show the spirit of the American people.  Of all of the arguments to help make the world a more sustainable place, McKibben’s basic argument has to be the strongest.  Business is probably not going to change on its own; it will continue to operate in the cheapest and easiest ways possible, by almost only using fossil fuels.  The American government will continue to support business over the environment as long as lobbyism from business remains the source of government official campaign funding.  Therefore, the force that needs to fight for the environment is the people.  For all of the other authors’ sustainability goals to happen, a movement from the masses must occur.  It must be from the masses because victories by minority environmentalist groups are usually overturned.  It must be a movement like the civil rights movement, where people show consistently that they want something and will be active enough to get it.  A movement, started by education, is the best way to lead to a more sustainable future.  There are many things that can be done for the sake of sustainability, but the change will only be drastic enough to matter if enough people are behind it.  The more people who know and care about today’s environmental problems, the more people will push for better laws and the more people who will attempt to incorporate sustainability into their jobs and everyday life. 

This movement will lead to people who care about the environment.  Conservation will be emphasized because people can easily control that in their daily lives.  Capping the grid then may seem like a more reasonable argument that may be supported.  Localized alternative energy will seem to make more sense.  Conserving more land and water will seem to make more sense.  With more people speaking up and acting, more will be able to get done and it will get done easier and more permanently.  The root of the problem is that American citizens do not care, or do not care enough to act.  The first step needs to be environmental education and the start of a movement.  American citizens must be the force of change, because no one else will be.  Then it may be possible to reverse many of the negative environmental effects we have been causing, before it is too late.  

A Cleaner Energy Future: Realism vs. Idealism – Blog Post 9 - September 26

            This week for Energy Politics I read two short essays, one by Richard Heinberg and another by Amory B. Lovins, on how the world should confront the energy crisis.  Both of these authors have a good vision for an ideal future, but do not recommend any steps to get there.  

Heinberg argues that people could either continue on the maximum carbon plan, burning all fossil fuels until it is not profitable to burn anymore, or the minimum carbon plan, where people use subsidies and incentives to increase the renewable energy sector, use biofuels instead of oil for transportation, and try to sequester carbon dioxide and store it out of the atmosphere.  Either way, Heinberg argues that people will need to decrease their energy consumption per capita in the future, so he recommends doing it now to make the transition easier.  Heinberg addresses most sectors, from agriculture to buildings.  He argues that with a shortage of fossil fuels, more people will have to be hired to maintain the fields in agriculture, and it will be less economical for farmers to use pesticides and herbicides.  Additionally, transportation will be more costly so communities should be reorganized so that public transportation can be utilized or so that walking or biking is more preferable.  A lot of these points are valid and are ideal in my opinion, but the question I ask is, how do we get there?  How do we get to this point and conserve more energy before we need to, as Heinberg suggests?

Amory B. Lovins has a similar piece.  He suggests that energy efficiency will lead to more profits for business and more economic growth.  Lovins makes many claims that technology is improving and that technology is here today that can help us live more efficiently.  He cites his own home as having countless improvements that make it very energy efficient.  On the other hand, many of his facts and statistics seem far too extrapolated to really make sense.  His technocratic belief that technology will save us seems far too strong to really trust a lot of what he says.  For example, Lovins argues that electric cars could have 125-250 miles per gallon by 2050.  He also talks about trucks and cars having “triple-efficiency trucks and planes” that require no oil because biofuels, hydrogen, and electricity will take over.  These kinds of assumptions on what technology will be able to do in the future are not well routed and seem too far extrapolated to really make much sense.  Increasing the miles per gallon of electric cars does not follow a linear path; additionally, efficiency generally decreases as more energy-efficient technologies are added due to the law of diminishing returns.  Furthermore, a hydrogen economy is very far away and would need a large policy, law, or subsidy to really get going and replace our current infrastructure.  Although Lovins brings up many economical ways to be more efficient, such as to integrative design in how we build and construct things, a lot of his claims seem too technocratic to believe the facts behind what he is saying.  
In conclusion, although it is great to have an ideal view of how society should function in the future, Heinberg and Lovins both do not put full plans together on how to get there.  One focuses on conservation of energy that is currently non-profitable in many ways; the other focuses on technological advancements that are unlikely to occur or function on their own. 
 

Gathering Support for an Environmental Movement – Blog Post 8 - September 23

            The world today is plagued with environment injustices, from the destruction of ecosystems across the globe to the poisoning of the very water and air we depend on for survival.  Yet, most Americans live their lives without ever doing anything to help the environment.  They move on and focus on their own lives in their own little bubbles, allowing environmental problems to worsen as the economy grows and businesses take advantage of the relaxed regulation that governs them.  Some people are unaware of the environmental problems.  Others do not care, do not have time to help, or do not know how to help.  The fact of the matter is, more people need to care and need to help if we are going to save the planet before it is radically destroyed, even more so than it is today.

            This week in class we watched the move Climate Change Disruption, which mainly focused on the events leading up to the People’s Climate March in New York City.  The march was meant to show support and show that climate change is an issue that needs to be addressed.  One of the strongest things that I took from the video is the need for emotional appeal to get people to become active.  The video explained that people have a rational, analytical side of the brain that helps to understand the problem, as well as an emotional, intuitive side that is very reactive.  In order to get people to become active, you must make them care and make them emotionally charged up. 

            Environmentalists have been using emotions in their campaigns for a while, but their scope is usually too thin.  Environmental activists usually focus on the environmental effects of climate change, which many times seem too gradual to really convince anyone to do anything.  As the movie Climate Change Disruption states, people have a finite pool of worry that usually prioritizes more immediate worries first.  People are so overwhelmed with their everyday struggles that they usually cannot be bothered by apocalyptic views of climate change twenty years down the road. 

            So how do you make people care?  You must explain how the environmental degradation impacts them directly.  You must make them care and make them see it on an everyday level.  You must make them feel like they are part of the environment and that it impacts them directly.  The organizers of the People’s Climate March did this well and really proved this point.  They discussed that the poor get hit first with environmental problems, and rallied them around this point.  The organizers talked about public health and protecting jobs.  These are things that directly affect people and that people worry about on a daily basis.  These are the things that will bring the average person to care about climate change.  The community of people fighting climate change needs to be expanded from solely environmentalists to all groups affected by climate change. 

            One of the most interesting groups I heard about in the video was called the Labor Network for Sustainability (LNS).  This is a group that wants to work with unions to fight climate change and lead to a more sustainable future.  They recognize that people are dependent on the environment and that if the climate worsens a lot, jobs will be lost.  Additionally, the LNS sees the green and sustainable jobs as a market that they would like to enter into.  Sustainability’s roots are in social and economic equities, so they have similarities to labor unions as well.  The LNS believes the best way to do this is to come up with a shared future plan with environmentalists and union workers so that both groups can fully work together towards a common goal (About 1-3).  The LNS is just one great example of the different groups that can be rallied behind an environmental issue.  Environmental issues impact most people in some way; it is up to the organizer to figure out which impacts will motivate people to take action the most.  People need to take action, in order to have a better future for all of humanity. 

Works Cited

"About." Labor Network for Sustainability. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2014. <http://www.labor4sustainability.org/about/>.

Geoengineering : A Planetary Science Experiment – Blog Post 7 - September 19

This week I read the section “Regulatory Illusion” in The Energy Reader, which discussed the current “regulatory” system that Americans have today.  Although the government is supposed to function as public servants who try to improve the lives of its citizens, Horejsi argues that the government today works primarily for big business.  American citizens assume that regulators are checking that fair, safe, and scientifically tested energy generation methods are used, and unsafe, unfair, or untested ones are not used.  Yet the BP Oil Spill was a shock to most Americans and showed the danger of the oil and gas industry, as well as the lack of accountability they actually have over the problems that they cause.  Horejsi continues on to mention that President Carter’s White House Council on Environmental Quality allowed “categorical exclusions” from the National Environmental Policy Act, which oil and gas companies use relentlessly to their advantage.  Most American citizens would be against these kinds of actions, yet most Americans do not know of do not feel they have the power to change anything.  How can we change these people?  How can we change this country?

Because big businesses essentially push around and lobby the government into allowing possibly unsafe and unscientifically proven technologies to be used, it is easy to see how geoengineering could become a big industry in the United States.  Geoengineering, as brought up by the ETC Group in “Retooling the Planet,” can only be done by richer countries and companies that have the money, power, resources, and technology to enact it.  These powerful companies would many times be doing this for profit, not to help the environment or to help developing countries deal with climate change.  I could definitely see geoengineering becoming a big industry in the United States because big companies could make big money doing it, and they could use their big money to lobby Congress to make it happen.

So why are people opposed to geoengineering?  Major social, economic, and environmental damage could result.  Socially, dominant rich countries could geoengineer the planet without consulting the poorer countries, which will more than likely be affected by the geoengineering done.  Additionally, as the ETC Group points out, these rich countries will probably not be too worried about how the poorer countries fair from the geoengineering experiments, as long as their own country’s condition improves.  This is probable because rich companies today exploit poorer people all the time; what prevents them from doing so on a larger scale!  This could make poorer countries even poorer by placing an unfair burden on them, just like climate change already has.

Others may argue my last statement.  They may say that geoengineering won’t provide any negative results to harm poorer countries or people because it is a fully beneficial technology.  I would like to argue that by stating that everything has some form of unintended consequences, and experiments on the global scale would more than likely have some unpleasant ones.  For example, in the article “Engineering the Ocean,” David Biello argues that dumping iron sulfate into the Southern Ocean’s eddies would lead to increased plankton populations, which would take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and mitigate climate change.  Additionally, when the plankton die, they fall to the bottom of the ocean, which sequesters the carbon there.  Biello argues that the technology has already demonstrated that it works because Victor Smecatek ran one experiment that showed a higher plankton population when the iron was added and a much faster rate of carbon in the form of plankton reaching the seafloor (Biello 3).

Although Smecatek’s experiment generated the results he wanted in regards to plankton, it did not necessarily generate the results he wanted of lowering carbon dioxide emissions.  No carbon dioxide emissions were taken (or at least reported in this article), so how would he know if this experiment really worked?  Maybe the growth in plankton led to the growth of something else that led to more carbon dioxide being released?  In addition, one experiment does not signify that something works; science is all about repetition.  This result needs to be repeated by others in order for it to be significant and a proven technology.  Finally, the unintended consequences of this experiment were not even considered.  What if eutrophication occurs, just like it does at the bottom of the Mississippi River, which would lead to fish kills and whale kills instead of increased fish and whale populations?  What if decomposers broke down the plankton under the water, which releases carbon dioxide?  This would release a lot of carbon dioxide, which is the opposite of what sequestering would do.  What if iron plumes poison the ocean?  What are the environmental impacts of acquiring the iron needed, shipping it to the Arctic, and then dumping it?  Is it worth the fossil fuels to even do this?  What if an increase in plankton populations hurts other organisms in the food web, instead of helping them?  None of these studies were done, and most of them cannot be done without trying out this method on a large scale.

In conclusion, geoengineering is a very dangerous industry.  Although proponents of the industry point out its potential benefits, these are many times just assumptions.  The number of unintended consequences that could occur when manipulating large, complicated, interconnected ecosystems that are poorly understood is tremendous and unpredictable.  Experiments done to help prove the validity of a geoengineering technique cannot possibly analyze everything that can go wrong because there are simply too many variables to account for on that scale.  Focusing on geoengineering also gives the fossil fuel industry a crutch, allowing them to say that geoengineering will save the planet and enabling them to keep polluting.  Our time and resources should go towards mitigation, not the false hope of geoengineering.  Unfortunately though, based on how our government is currently set up, geoengineering may be funded more than I hope it would be in the United States.

Works Cited

Biello, David. "Engineering the Ocean: Once You Know What Plankton Can Do, You’ll Understand Why Fertilising the Ocean with Iron Is Not Such a Crazy Idea." AEON. N.p., 1 July 2014. Web. 19 Sept. 2014. <http://aeon.co/magazine/technology/can-tiny-plankton-help-reverse-climate-change/>.

Megadams: A Technology We Should Continue to Use Today – Blog Post 6 - September 16

            This week in The Energy Reader, I read a short argument by Juan Pablo Orrego about the false solution of megadams.  Although Juan Orrego crafted a good argument, I disagree with many of the points he made, including his final conclusion that megadams should not really be used at all. 

            Orrego’s biggest argument, along with most people who do not like dams, is that dams destroy ecological areas.  They prevent the normal flow of water downstream, which causes variations in oxygen content, temperature, and sediment flow.  These sediments contain organic and inorganic materials that are essential to downstream ecosystems.  Orrego extended the argument by pointing out a common idea in environmental science: everything affects everything.  The ecologically damaged stream can affect other nearby ecosystems that depend on the stream, such as estuaries and even the ocean, which damages those ecosystems as well.  Some technological advancements can help to lower these impacts though, such as by sediment flushing.  Sediment flushing opens up lower parts of the dam temporarily so that sediments can flow downstream.  This can be good for the dam operator because it prevents the reservoirs from filling in.  The environment may benefit from these sediments, depending on the rate at which they are released from the dam (Sumi 1).  

            Although all of this is true, I still support megadams to the fullest.  Many of the problems with megadams are fixable, or are minimal in comparison to other methods of generating electricity.  Orrego debates the idea that hydroelectric megadam technology is a “clean, abundant, renewable, and cheap source of energy” (The Energy Reader 180).  He claims that these assumptions are ideological and not descriptive of what really happens.  The energy return on investment for hydropower is generally between thirty and forty to one, which is very good and means that the energy can be sold for cheap (The Energy Reader 108).  Although people nearby the dams may pay expensive price for electricity in his experiences, this is probably because of greedy megadam companies, not because of the technology.  Powerful companies taking advantage of poorer countries and poorer people is not specific to hydropower, but is common to most industries, so this is not a good reason to specifically disincentivize megadams.  To further debate Orrego’s claim, I would argue that megadams are definitely renewable because they rely on a constant stream of water to power them.  Additionally, I would argue that they are clean because although it takes a lot of resources and fossil fuels to build the dam, it lasts a long time and takes close to no further input of fossil fuels after it is built.  This is a lot cleaner than mining for coal every time it is needed, transporting it across the country, and then burning it day and night. 

            Orrego also makes comments on how megadams can change the climate.  He argues that megadams can release millions of tons of methane per year due to the putrefaction of organic matter caused by the formation of a new reservoir.  It is true that bodies of water emit methane because water does not have much oxygen in it so decomposers use more anaerobic respiration, which releases methane.   I hypothesize that because there is more water upstream, there is less downstream; therefore, maybe downstream of the reservoir there is less methane release than usual, which would balance out the extra methane released by the reservoir.  Additionally, fossil fuels release tons of methane and carbon dioxide as well, so I do not find climate change a reason to disincentivize megadams right now because they are not bad in comparison to using fossil fuels for electricity generation. 

            In conclusion, although Orrego gives a decent argument on why megadams should not be supported, I strongly disagree with him.  The hydroelectric megadams have a good energy return on investment, are renewable, and provide energy locally for a long time period.  I feel confident that they are better for our climate than fossil fuels because fossil fuels need to be found, processed, delivered, and burned each time they are used, yet megadams are a one-time set-up with minimal costs afterwards, by comparison.  Additionally, the problems with ecosystem disruption can be aided by new technologies that help allow sediments through, such as sediment flushing techniques.  Overall, megadams are a much better technology for generating electricity than today’s major alternatives.  

How Should We Generate Electricity Today – Blog Post 5 - September 12

The Energy Reader argues that today’s ever-growing demand for energy is unsustainable and that people need to reduce the energy that they use and generate that energy from more sustainable sources.  Yet today, most alternative energies are not ready to step up and become a major energy producer because of the challenges discussed by David Fridley in “Alternative Energy Challenges.”  Positive environmental progress can be made if society begins to implement the good alternative energies we have today and if society decreases its energy usage.  Realistically speaking, though, most electricity in the near future will still be generated by coal, natural gas, or nuclear energy because these three energy sources are the only ones that can generate a large quantity of electricity non-intermittently in most locations.  Therefore, it is essential to analyze these three technologies and to decide which technology, or which combination of technologies, would be the best for the environment right now, considering society is going to have to use at least one of them until other alternative energy sources get better.

Coal is the oldest-used fossil fuel, as well as one of the dirtiest to burn.  Burning coal releases carbon dioxide, sulfur and nitrous oxides, mercury, and particulate matter into the air, which causes climate change, acid rain, biomagnification of mercury in fish, and asthma and other respiratory problems in animals.  Additionally, mining the coal destroys mountains, fills in valleys, and generates tons of waste that many times pollutes nearby streams.  Jeff Goodell argues that the industry is still so strong because of greenwashing advertising, which markets “clean coal” technology and tricks people into thinking that coal isn’t dirty.  This allows people to think that energy generation is getting cleaner and that there is nothing to worry about.  In addition, heavy lobbyism helps to keep carbon taxes and other environmental taxes and regulations out of the coal industry, in order to keep the price of coal down.  Regardless of the regulations set up or the greenwashing though, coal is incredibly energy dense, many times located near the surface, easy to transport, and can provide cheap electricity to the consumer.  Greenwashing or not, should we continue to burn coal or should we look to one of the other two energy sources for electricity?

High-volume slick water hydraulic fracturing is one of the newest ways to get natural gas out of the ground.  The rate at which the industry is growing is really big because the new technology allows natural gas that was originally too difficult to get out economically profitable to recover.  This can help the United States to acquire domestic natural gas, which can be burned for electricity with half of the greenhouse gas emissions of the other fossil fuels.  The natural gas, similarly to coal, is portable, energy dense, and can provide cheap electricity.  The problem is that the process of hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of water per frack and mixes them with hundreds of chemicals, many of which are known carcinogens and neurotoxins.  These toxins poison the water, to the point where it cannot be cleaned.  The frack fluid is pumped down the well to liberate and collect the gas, and about half of it is retrieved.  The half that is retrieved is eventually put in pits, which are many times unlined because of the lack of regulation on tens of thousands of wells.  Additionally, the frack fluid that comes back up out of the well contains benzene and other carcinogens, brine, radioactivity, and heavy metals, as Sandra Steingraber describes in “The Whole Fracking Enchilada.”  Finally, as stated in the movie Gasland 2, about five percent of cement-casings in wells break right after filling, which results in methane spewing up into the atmosphere from the well.  As Sandra Steingraber points out, methane that escapes to the atmosphere unburned is about twenty times as bad for climate change as carbon dioxide. 

Nuclear power is also highly controversial.  Unlike fracking and coal, it gets a lot of negative press and does not do much greenwashing.  Yet, it is still funded and subsidized in many areas of the world today.  Nuclear power essentially generates no greenhouse gases (except for in the mining of the uranium), is incredibly efficient for the amount of energy that can be released per unit mass of uranium, and can generate enough electricity to run cities.  On the other hand, it produces tons and tons of radioactive material, either in the form of tailings when mining for the uranium or in spent fuel rods and liquid plutonium waste.  Additionally, it consists of another threat that coal and fracking both do not have.  As Richard Bell points out in “Nuclear Power and the Earth,” the technology for nuclear power plants is very similar to the power for nuclear bombs.  Although people call for the “atoms for peace” instead of the “atoms for war,” a country having nuclear power is a threat because that means they also have the power for nuclear arms.  Additionally, any mistakes or accidents could lead to detonation, which could take the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. 

Each of the major sources of electricity discussed above has positives and many negatives.  Although safer alternative energy sources are being developed, they are not currently ready to take over for these three main producers.  So which one should be supported?  In other words, which one is the least bad for the environment?  I would argue that hydraulic fracturing is the worst.  Hydraulic fracturing poisons millions of gallons of water per frack.  Considering people say that the next world war will be over water, and the fact that every human, animal, and plant depends on clean water, I think preserving water is the most important.  I value this resource the most.  Between coal and nuclear is hard, and is a question really of risk assessment.  People view risk very differently.  Originally, I would have supported nuclear over coal because coal has a guaranteed negative effect every time it is used.  Nuclear has a lot less waste compared to coal, and the chance of a “freak accident” is low.  After reading David Ehrenfeld’s “When Risk Assessment is Risky” article, my opinion has changed.  One quote specifically hit me hard.  A financial trader named Nassim Taleb said “it does not matter how frequently [predictions succeed] if failure is too costly to bear.”  Although the chance of a nuclear power plant exploding seems statistically low, if it did, it would cause immense damage.  Additionally, Ehrenfeld argues that risk assessment cannot be done if the system is too complex and tightly coupled to fully understand; therefore, Ehrenfeld has convinced me that nuclear is not the electricity source I would like to support either.  In summary, I guess the cleanest coal possible would be my preferred choice of electricity generation for the majority of the United States, until we phase in the other alternatives.  Natural gas recovered not from high volume slick water hydraulic fracturing would also be acceptable.  

Micropower, The Key to Our Energy Future – Blog Post 4 - September 9

Today’s society is dependent on fossil fuels.  As page 110 of The Energy Reader shows, about 86% of the world’s energy usage comes from fossil fuels.  As John Michael Greer discussed in “Progress v Apocalypse,” fossil fuels gave people access to energy to power machines to do more work for us, which enabled the world’s economies to grow, which enabled the world’s food production and population to grow.  Now that fossil fuels are becoming less abundant, Greer discusses the two myths that people today currently have.  He discusses the myth of progress, which states that all of human history has been an improvement of the human condition, and that people can invent their way out of the problems of a limited world.  The other, much more pessimistic view is that people have been heading downwards since farming began and that civilization is heading towards a complete and utter crash.  Greer argues that neither of these myths is really accurate because the facts show otherwise, and I agree with his predictions.  The myth of progress is not true because for most of human history, the human condition stayed the same.  In addition to this, the world’s economy cannot grow indefinitely on a limited planet.  The myth of apocalypse is also incorrect because the decline of fossil fuels will be slow and dependent on price, not on the actual reserves.  Climate change and other negative environmental effects will also not devastate the planet all at once, but will gradually if people do not start reducing greenhouse gas emissions soon. 

On the other hand, I disagree with Greer’s idea that the future is headed towards a pre-industrial society similar to the world before it knew fossil fuels.  I predict that the future will be a good amount different from pre-industrial society.  First of all, in the past people had used water and wind to generate power, as well as sunlight to grow crops.  Now, new technologies allow people to access the energy within the ground (geothermal energy), from the sun to produce electricity and heat, from the wind, from biomass, and maybe even from other sources as people become more creative.  I think that even after the reign of fossil fuels, people will still have more energy available than pre-industrial societies because people now understand energy and how to harvest it naturally from the environment better.  Additionally, I see fossil fuel usage slowing dramatically as prices rise, but never really being eradicated completely until a new technology is ready to take its spot; therefore, I do not really see the United States regressing to a pre-industrial society. 

I discussed the key to this revolutionary change in energy in my last blog post, but will expand on it here.  The third part of The Energy Reader discusses the different types of energy sources that are around today.  Most of the alternative energies listed face some of the challenges listed by David Fridley, all not seeming suitable to fully replace fossil fuels.  It is not the parts that matter, but the sum of the parts.  Integrating many alternative energies, all with their own positives and negatives, is the best answer I can think of for turning around the energy crisis that is currently developing.  The idea of micropower is an idea that I agree with a lot.  Micropower uses the most appropriate local energy for a certain area.  It uses solar photovoltaics in sunny areas, wind in windy areas, hydropower near rivers and hopefully in oceans in the future, geothermal near active geothermal sites, and a various array of other technologies where they are most effective.  This local scale energy production is beneficial because it reduces the distance energy sources must travel, is more sustainable for many of the alternative energies because it generally pollutes less, and is many times more efficient because electricity is not lost throughout long power lines.  If alternative energy is used in this way, it may be able to phase out fossil fuels much faster than people think.  For example, industrial wind energy has the potential to generate a megawatt or two of energy for one wind turbine.  That is incredible!  A few turbines could power a small city for years and years, with only repair costs once it is set up. 

When looking at the list of energy sources in Part Three of The Energy Reader, there is one thing that worries me.  I see plenty of alternative energy sources that generate electricity that seem viable and close to, if not already, commercially available in some form.  However, I do not see many alternatives to the gasoline used for cars.  Because fuel for cars needs to be energy dense, it is much harder to design an alternative energy to replace gasoline because most alternative energies have low energy densities.  The electric-powered cars and hydrogen-powered cars are possible, but need a lot more improvements before they really become popular, or even possible.  Are there any other solutions to this problem?  A new technological innovation in this area seems the most necessary, at least in my opinion. 

Infrastructural, Technological, and Economic Challenges of Alternative Energy – Blog Post 3 - September 5

This week, I read the next few sections of The Energy Reader and found the section “Alternative Energy Challenges” very interesting.  The section focuses on the non-monetary reasons why integrating alternative energies into society, and eventually replacing fossil fuels with them, is difficult.  David Fridley lists seven different factors that restrict or challenge alternative energy usage.  I would like to point out that each of the challenges listed does not affect each alternative energy source the same.  For example, one of the greatest problems with solar and wind energy is the intermittency of the technology, but electric-powered cars do not have this problem.  The reason I point this out is because at first glance, these seven challenges seem to make a future of alternative energy look improbable, but after looking at the list a little more carefully for each alternative energy, many alternative energies really only have a few major problems that challenge them.  These challenges can be solved through technological advancements, or through using certain technologies in certain situations.  The alternative energies that we create or use do not need to be perfect if they are integrated together in a way that complements their benefits and minimizes their costs.

For example, solar and wind energy already have the scalability and timing to be effective.  Both technologies can be manufactured and installed for a price that will eventually pay itself off and save the buyer money in the long run.  Solar and wind also do not have a major challenge in the substitutability area because there are not many infrastructural changes that need to take place to implement them.  No new roads, pipelines, refueling stations, or other infrastructure changes are really needed to use them, with the exception of transmission lines for centralized solar farms and more manufacturing plants to make the parts.  I do not consider transmission lines and more manufacturing plants that much of an infrastructural difference, especially compared to other energy technologies. 

Some of the major technological challenges to solar and wind energy include the energy density, intermittency, and material input requirements of the technologies.  Each of these challenges can be dealt with based on how we use the technologies, and through some technological advancements.  The energy density of solar and wind energy is low, but I do not think this is a major problem if solar and wind energy is used for purposes that do not require it to have high energy densities.  By this I mean that solar and wind are great for powering houses, but not so great for powering cars.  This means that solar and wind energy will not be good in every area of life, but they could definitely help to reduce the amount of coal used to generate electricity in the home.  Intermittency is a problem that can be solved by developing better energy storage systems, and material input requirements can be improved by finding replacements for rare heavy metals like gallium and indium for solar panels.  Although these problems exist and some of the problems do require technological innovations, solar and wind energy should still be implemented today in my opinion because they could help reduce our dependence on coal, which is much worse overall for the environment.

Some other challenges that affect solar and wind energy are economic.  Although solar and wind energy is scalable, they are not necessarily that commercially-sound.  This is because the initial cost to purchase these energies is high and many people cannot afford them.  Additionally, it is much more difficult to find solar or wind energy, learn about them, and then install them as opposed to just using the electricity from the grid.  Solar and wind energy are not available for cheap at Home Depot, for example, which would make buying and using them a lot easier.  Maybe some small scale ones should be sold in Home Depot, versions that are easy to operate and show how much energy and money have been saved, so that people can learn about these alternative energies and be more interested in using them.  Regardless, this does not change the fact that they are much more expensive to buy upfront than electricity from the grid.  Maybe if the EROI’s were adjusted more fairly, people would see that alternative energies are not as expensive by comparison.

By adjusting the EROI’s, I really mean two things.  First of all, I mean that the EROI’s should be calculated with none of the incentives or subsidies given by the government, to see which technologies are really the most expensive and which have been given an unfair advantage.  Second of all, I think that the type of EROI matters a lot here.  As Charles A. S. Hall discusses in his article “Energy Return on Investment,” EROImm is the most common EROI used, and is simply the energy that can be used divided by the energy used in the extraction or production facility.  This EROI favors fossil fuels because they are much more energy dense and much cheaper to extract than almost all alternative energies.  EROI point of use, on the other hand, is the ratio of available energy where it is being used divided by the energy needed to extract, process, refine, and deliver the energy to a certain area.  Since solar and wind energy locally produce energy, once they are set up, there is no energy needed to continue to extract, process, refine, or deliver the energy.  On the other hand, fossil fuels always need to be processed, refined, and delivered continuously in order to keep society running; therefore, using the EROI point of use and ridding of subsidies and incentives in the EROI equation may lead to a EROI that shows that many alternative energies may not be too far off from the fossil fuels.  This calculation does not even include the energy needed to remediate the destruction caused by energy production, which would certainly hurt the fossil fuels’ EROI even more!

In conclusion, although there are many challenges to alternative energies fully replacing fossil fuels, I think that many current alternative energy technologies are good enough to be implemented today to at least lower our fossil fuel usage.  Proper integration of different alternative energies could lead to a much more sustainable future.  

Limits and Freedom - Blog Post 2 - September 2

The United States’ current economic system depends on growth.  It wants to, and argues that it has to, continue to grow in order for the economy to stay strong and for jobs to be created and maintain themselves.  As economies grow, so does the amount of resources needed to support them.  As The Energy Reader points out, since the world only has a finite number of resources, it is impossible for economies to continue to grow indefinitely.  Eventually, the world economy will deplete close to all of the planet’s resources, and the human population will crash.    

In addition to this, the United States’ economy is currently a “free” market, where businesses can set their own prices and compete freely with each other.  The problem is, it is incredibly difficult for most companies to start up in this country because of how strong the already existing, big companies are.  Additionally, businesses, just like citizens, are innocent until proven guilty in America.  This allows them to purposefully endanger the environment or United States citizens and leave it up to the citizens themselves or the government to prove that they are acting poorly.  During this time, the business can continue to make sales and make money, and by the time they have been asked to recall a product, the damage has already been done and they have made their money. 

I always thought that a free market was a good thing, something to be proud of my country for having.  The article in the book called “Faustian Economics” by Wendell Berry changed my mind slightly on this.  In this article, Berry argued that freedom does not mean that a person can do whatever he or she wants.  In America, people are free to do whatever they please, but only if it is not at someone else’s expense because all people have unalienable rights.  As a result of that, even freedom in America has limits. 

Relating this to a free market, free markets can have limits as well.  A free market does not have to be free of all rules.  Maybe America needs to give more rights for the start-up businesses?  Maybe they need to take some rights away from the bigger companies?  Maybe they need to give more rights to the environment and other areas that need protection?  America needs to stop obsessing over being limitless; everything has limits, even their own rights and freedoms. 

So following up on this idea, what rights would we give to whom to make America’s market a better place?    How can we limit our economy’s growth, or stop it? 

The Root of the Energy Crisis – Blog Post 1 - August 29

            In today’s world, energy is a huge topic in politics, and for good reason.  People depend on energy for everything, from luxuries like electricity to necessities like food.  Humans have become more and more dependent on living lives that require excessive amounts of energy due to the cheap, energy-dense fossil fuels that they began to use in the early eighteen-hundreds.  This excessive fossil fuel usage is not only unsustainable because it is causing the human race to become dependent on a finite resource that is rapidly being depleted, but it is also unsustainable because it is allowing humans to overexploit the planet’s other resources as well.  This could lead to an energy crisis that could lead to political strife, wars, and famine, as well as a sick and dying planet.

For this class, I read the first part and a half of the book The Energy Reader: Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth.  To start, I really liked how the emphasis of this book would be on using less energy and on the social and political side of the energy crisis.  The more and more I study sustainability, the more and more I feel that the root of the problems our society faces today is in society, not necessarily in technology. 

In the introduction, the editor mentions that the main problem is not that humans are using the wrong resources or that they are wasting too much energy, but that they are expanding their economies in a limitless way, which is overpowering nature.  The editor argues that the main root, therefore, is in the ever-growing, limitless economy, which is “needed” to keep businesses afloat.  Trying to create technological innovations or make technologies more efficient are just remedies to the symptoms and do not work at the root of the problem, which is social.  I very much agree with the fact that these solutions would just be curing symptoms, and I would like to delve deeper into the issue to really analyze what the root of the problem is so I can figure out the best approach in fixing it.

Currently, I believe the root of the energy crisis, which is part of a larger environmental crisis, relates to how society has stopped valuing nature and feels disconnected from it.  In Michael Bell’s An Invitation to Environmental Sociology, Bell discussed one theory on how humans began to devalue nature.  This theory dealt with the transition from Paganism to Christianity.  Pagans generally believe that there is a spirit in everything, from a rock to a tree.  As a result of this belief, they treated nature with respect and did their best to not overexploit it.  One of the arguments made in this book was that the Christian religion, where man is viewed to dominate and rule over the Earth, changed people’s perspectives on nature.  Because Christians viewed that they were above nature, they felt that they could do whatever they pleased with it; this gave them the ability to exploit it.  The evidence given discussed how certain technological advancements were made in Christian areas, such as the moldboard plow, which tore up the soil and probably would have been unacceptable to Pagans at the time (Bell 154-155). 

Whether this theory is true or not is debatable, but the point is that at some point in history, people stopped valuing the environment and stopped feeling a connection to it.  People do not willingly destroy things that they truly value, yet the environment is degraded all of the time and most people do not even shrug.  If more people cared and felt connected, they would make better daily decisions to help the environment, support the correct businesses to help the environment, and maybe even become politically active to help the environment.

Although it is hard to describe why nature itself has inert value, I really liked and agreed with how Sandra Lubarsky described it in Life Affirming Beauty.  She argued that there is a relationship between sustainability and beauty.  Although people say that aesthetics are not objective, she argues that nobody would ever argue that mountaintop removal is beautiful.  Lubarsky argued against the idea that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” because if that is the case, then people are giving value, in the form of beauty, to different objects.  In reality, all things have aesthetic worth and value and people’s personal values do not affect that worth.  Lubarsky basically argues that life and beauty are linked and all life should be valued.  I liked that description of beauty a lot because if other people viewed life that way, people wouldn’t only care for the environment, but they also would care for each other more.

Bell, Michael M. An Invitation to Environmental Sociology. 4th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications, 2012. Print.