Energy in America - Is Renewable Really Doable?
"Renewable" is such a pleasant term.
I like it.
Let's all reduce, reuse, recycle and now renew.
After all, who wants to be wasteful? Unfortunately we are now supposed to rearrange our lives, our homes and now our very country in the hopes of catching a trickle of sunlight here and a puff of wind there.
Every source of energy has its drawbacks.
One concern with wind power in populated areas is ice.
Freezing rain and sleet accumulate on the spinning blades.
When the weight gets too heavy or as the blades begin to warm, chunks of razor-sharp ice will be turned into potentially deadly projectiles.
Larger blades or greater numbers of turbines will invariably produce greater risk.
Safety concerns would suggest placing the machines away from populated areas but that of course mandates increased infrastructure costs as the energy is transported into towns and cities.
The reason fossil fuels are more desirable than wind or solar is because they are concentrated.
Petroleum is a form of concentrated liquid sunshine.
It contains energy that came to earth years ago and was transformed through natural, organic processes into a powerful energy source that remains stored in underground reservoirs for us to access and use at our leisure.
Wind comes to us one puff at a time.
Solar energy comes to us one ray at a time.
Petroleum, coal and natural gas however represent millions of rays and years of wind packed densely, tightly and neatly away.
I would love to be able to plug in an inexpensive solar collector and eliminate my electric bill but that technology simply does not exist today.
In the meantime the world still needs power.
How much fossil fuel do we have available to us anyway? The volume continues to grow to measures that are virtually incomprehensible.
With current technology, energy can be accessed, transported and made available with very little interruption to the environment.
An additional oil field here or another pipeline there is just as reasonable as wind farms and large solar concentrators.
There is also a tremendous amount of energy in the earth's oceans.
Wave technology seeks to harness a portion of that as well.
Of course, how do we know that removing energy from an ocean will not affect the nearby ecology? If we artificially reduce waves in a certain area that impact may affect underwater currents, destroying pristine ecosystems.
I am not suggesting that wave energy isn't doable or even desirable, merely that every action produces a reaction.
We can burn less coal but somewhere, something has to make up the difference, shifting the resulting influence elsewhere.
Some people are concerned that another oil field in Alaska will destroy naturally unspoiled areas.
Let us put that into perspective.
A good friend of mine lived in Alaska for three years and informed me that people in Alaska call Texas the third largest state in the Union.
Texas is the second largest state behind Alaska, not the third.
So why do Alaskans call Texas our third largest state? The reason is because if you cut it in half, each half of Alaska would be larger than the entire state of Texas.
If that doesn't relate I will try another comparison.
Alaska is six and a half times larger than all five of the great lakes combined.
Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by plants.
The plants then emit oxygen which is breathed in by mammals and converted back into carbon dioxide which is converted back to oxygen and so on.
The planet is self-regulating.
If carbon dioxide levels rise sufficiently then plant life will flourish, absorbing the excess gasses and bringing the planet back into its natural state of balance without waiting for permission or cooperation from politicians.
Think this through using your own common sense.
How can the planet be poisoned by something it willingly created? It is unreasonable and irresponsible to suggest multiplying the energy cost to Americans during a recession in the hopes of making a few people feel better about themselves.
Advances are being made and costs are coming down for renewable energy but as I write this article, coal is the source of approximately one half of the electricity in America.
Fifty years from now coal-burning power plants may be as common as payphones but in the meantime the most intelligent course of action seems to be making the most of what we have while keeping an eager and creative eye towards the future.
Comments from my readers are always welcome.
I like it.
Let's all reduce, reuse, recycle and now renew.
After all, who wants to be wasteful? Unfortunately we are now supposed to rearrange our lives, our homes and now our very country in the hopes of catching a trickle of sunlight here and a puff of wind there.
Every source of energy has its drawbacks.
One concern with wind power in populated areas is ice.
Freezing rain and sleet accumulate on the spinning blades.
When the weight gets too heavy or as the blades begin to warm, chunks of razor-sharp ice will be turned into potentially deadly projectiles.
Larger blades or greater numbers of turbines will invariably produce greater risk.
Safety concerns would suggest placing the machines away from populated areas but that of course mandates increased infrastructure costs as the energy is transported into towns and cities.
The reason fossil fuels are more desirable than wind or solar is because they are concentrated.
Petroleum is a form of concentrated liquid sunshine.
It contains energy that came to earth years ago and was transformed through natural, organic processes into a powerful energy source that remains stored in underground reservoirs for us to access and use at our leisure.
Wind comes to us one puff at a time.
Solar energy comes to us one ray at a time.
Petroleum, coal and natural gas however represent millions of rays and years of wind packed densely, tightly and neatly away.
I would love to be able to plug in an inexpensive solar collector and eliminate my electric bill but that technology simply does not exist today.
In the meantime the world still needs power.
How much fossil fuel do we have available to us anyway? The volume continues to grow to measures that are virtually incomprehensible.
With current technology, energy can be accessed, transported and made available with very little interruption to the environment.
An additional oil field here or another pipeline there is just as reasonable as wind farms and large solar concentrators.
There is also a tremendous amount of energy in the earth's oceans.
Wave technology seeks to harness a portion of that as well.
Of course, how do we know that removing energy from an ocean will not affect the nearby ecology? If we artificially reduce waves in a certain area that impact may affect underwater currents, destroying pristine ecosystems.
I am not suggesting that wave energy isn't doable or even desirable, merely that every action produces a reaction.
We can burn less coal but somewhere, something has to make up the difference, shifting the resulting influence elsewhere.
Some people are concerned that another oil field in Alaska will destroy naturally unspoiled areas.
Let us put that into perspective.
A good friend of mine lived in Alaska for three years and informed me that people in Alaska call Texas the third largest state in the Union.
Texas is the second largest state behind Alaska, not the third.
So why do Alaskans call Texas our third largest state? The reason is because if you cut it in half, each half of Alaska would be larger than the entire state of Texas.
If that doesn't relate I will try another comparison.
Alaska is six and a half times larger than all five of the great lakes combined.
Carbon Dioxide is absorbed by plants.
The plants then emit oxygen which is breathed in by mammals and converted back into carbon dioxide which is converted back to oxygen and so on.
The planet is self-regulating.
If carbon dioxide levels rise sufficiently then plant life will flourish, absorbing the excess gasses and bringing the planet back into its natural state of balance without waiting for permission or cooperation from politicians.
Think this through using your own common sense.
How can the planet be poisoned by something it willingly created? It is unreasonable and irresponsible to suggest multiplying the energy cost to Americans during a recession in the hopes of making a few people feel better about themselves.
Advances are being made and costs are coming down for renewable energy but as I write this article, coal is the source of approximately one half of the electricity in America.
Fifty years from now coal-burning power plants may be as common as payphones but in the meantime the most intelligent course of action seems to be making the most of what we have while keeping an eager and creative eye towards the future.
Comments from my readers are always welcome.