With the life of carbon energy sources nearing an end (we may not agree on how soon, but we have started to recognize as a society that these resources are not finite), we are commissioned with the task of securing a new mode of efficient energy production.
Historically our consumer driven society has steered us in our decisions concerning our energy production and consumption, which I don’t expect this to change. There are significant instances where some of our leading corporate entities have “manufactured” a cultural shift, resulting in a significant change in how we do something, for the economic benefit of that company or industry. One such example of this is General Motors acquisition and decommissioning of the
Getting back to the purpose of the this article, because we have seen corporations, government, and political lobbyists steer our world in directions that may have benefited personal pocket books more than possibly the general good of society, health, ecology, and earth I am interested to see what we as the individuals of our society feel are the best “next steps” in our need for energy production. This discussion does not need to be limited to the transportation industry, or any industry for that matter. I want to hear all ideas, such as possible resources, methods, infrastructure, usage, conservation. If you had an open invitation to walk into the main offices of the energy company, government, transportation manufacturers, and the individual homes of our world’s citizens, what ideas would you present?
If you’re strongly opinionated about this topic, but don’t have any idea where to start check out a few of these links and articles below to help formulate your own ideas on the possible solutions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_development
great wiki about several energy resources available to us today with pros and cons of each
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/apr/19/energy.ethicalliving
article in the UK Guardian on towns that are already transitioning into oil free communities!
http://www.transitiontowns.org/
Oil Free community info website
1 comment:
Hey Brian,
While you and I have had a discussion about the energy situation before, in my opinion, it was solely about non-mobile energy. From your post, it sounds like you are talking about both mobile and non-mobile energy.
To any readers, Brian and I discussed a petition against putting a new coal-fire power plant in the Pee-Dee region of South Carolina. While we agreed that coal plants can be very polluting, we disagreed on whether or not to sign the petition. I believed it was in the best interest short-medium term for the area which is approaching a power crisis as well as it would provide new jobs for the area, creating a chance for a possible better local economy. Brian disagreed based on the amount of pollution, mainly mercury into the ground and the air pollution the new plant would produce.
I agreed with Brian that a new plant would produce unwanted pollution however with new technology the amount produced is significantly less than plants build 30 years ago.
First I’ll talk about the non-mobile energy. Now the only two infinite energy sources available to us are solar energy and low level wind energy. Wind energy has an extremely high land/energy ratio, is unpredictable, and is detrimental to predatory birds. Solar energy while having a lower land/energy ratio is still much higher than today's methods. Solar energy is also unpredictable. I think solar energy should supplement today's current energy production.
I believe all buildings (houses, retail spaces, industrial and commercial buildings) should have to have a certain ratio of solar energy creation/sq.ft. This would extend the need for new power sources needing to be installed thus allowing for more advancements in cleaner technology to be made.
Mobile energy is a bit more difficult. Until solar panels are much more efficient in transferring solar (light) energy into electrical energy cars will not be able to be propelled by the sun. Hybrid cars could use small solar panels built into the roof and hood to charge the batteries. This would require the engine to charge less thus saving fuel.
I personally believe that fuel prices should be much higher. The national average for gasoline is about $4.07/gallon. Even at $4/gallon we are only seeing minimal conservation. People are still driving large vehicles needlessly, but everyone is complaining that fuel prices only continue to rise. With rising fuel prices, the cost of all goods increases. Currently commercial transportation uses approximately 20-25% of total fuel purchased. I think the price of gas should be doubled with the extra money going to keep commercial energy at a constant price so that the price of goods remains fairly constant, with the excess money that this would generate going into studying alternative fuels.
The fuel-cell vehicles that everybody thinks is the future are only a couple years down the road. I, personally, don't see them as a solution. These cars will take H2, split it into 2H+ + 2e-. The e- (the electron) is where the energy is generated. The 2H+ (Hydrogen Nuclei) will then combine with oxygen to produce a water molecule. I see this as two negatives. Water molecules in the air act as a green house gas. One of the main reasons for switching to fuel cell cars is to eliminate green house gasses. The second is altering the climate. With such a large amount of driving both us, as Americans, as well as others around the world, do, there is the possibility of creating so much water vapor that there is almost a constant rain. After seeing flooding like what is going on in Iowa now, I don't think more rain is a good thing for us.
Stephen
Post a Comment