The debate over suitable energy resources in the United States has been ongoing for several years. With the threat of global warming, carbon dioxide being a main contributor, the use of coal is not a feasible means of energy. The cost of coal produced energy at an environmentally sound standard precludes it as a viable option; therefore, expansion of the industry and implementation of new plants will only catalyze the effects of global climate change. The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, earlier this year, unfolded as millions watched in disbelief. The news showed images of locals, exposed to toxins, while aiding in cleanup efforts. The images showed devastation and peril, and livelihoods of the Gulf dependant fishing industry in jeopardy, dead marine animals washing up to oil caked beaches, wild life and ecosystems in imminent danger. The damage toll will be difficult to total, but will be long suffered. It is time to change the energy policies to accommodate the environment, the economy, and halt the looming threat of the dangers of Global warming. A maximized utilization of renewable energy sources and synthesized biofuels, together with new energy efficient technologies, the amount of green house gas emissions can be minimized to environmentally safe levels.
Renewable energy sources need to be used as much as possible. Concerns over the use of solar power as a viable means of energy, due to cost and intermittency constraints are valid. Until recently, that was an accurate assumption. Fthenakis, James E. Mason, and Ken Zweibel report that these issues where remedied with cost reductions in making photovoltaics (PV), as well as technologies in which compressed air storage, integrated with PV, and extended thermal storage capability in concentrated solar power, "pave[s] the way for enabling this technology to become cost competitive with fossil fuel energy generation." They further that "solar energy has the technical, geographical, and economic potential to supply 69% of the total electricity needs and 35% of the total (electricity and fuel) energy needs of the US by 2050" and by 2100 the numbers will reach 100% and 92% respectively.
Another great renewable source of energy is wind. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) hosted the Western Wind and Solar Integration Study which examined the impact of up to 30% wind and 5% solar energy penetration in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Wyoming. "The study concluded that 35% wind and solar energy penetration…is feasible." The NREL concluded that the case "reduced annual operating costs by 40% or $20 billion and CO2 emissions by 25%...assuming $9.50/ MBTU gas. At a $3.50/MBTU gas price, operating costs were reduced by 25% and CO2 by 45%."
Biofuels are a great alternative or additive for fossil fuels. Tilman describes that in order to be a viable substitute, "biofuel should provide a net energy gain, have environmental benefits, be economically competitive, and be producible in large quantities without reducing food supplies." He evaluates ethanol from corn grain and biodiesel from soybeans. His findings are that "[e]thanol yields 25% more energy than the energy invested in its production, whereas biodiesel yields 93% more." In comparison with ethanol, "[b]iodiesel releases just 1.0%, 8.3%, and 13% of the agricultural nitrogen, phosphorus, and pesticide pollutants, respectively, per net energy gain." He notes that relative to displaced fossil fuels, "greenhouse gas emissions are reduced 12% by the production and combustion of ethanol and 41% by biodiesel." Tilman points out that neither of these biofuels can replace much fossil fuel oil without impacting food supplies. He concludes that even more environmental benefits and greater supplies could be derived from biofuels like "synfuel hydrocarbons or cellulosic ethanol, if produced from low-input biomass grown on agriculturally marginal land or from waste biomass." The National Renewable Energy Laboratory led the National Advanced Biofuel Consortium (NABC) to develop advanced biofuels, "biomass-based hydrocarbon fuels that are compatible with existing gasoline, diesel, and jet engines as well as refineries and fueling stations."
Finally, energy efficiency is needed in completing a successful change of energy policy. Conservation sounds elementary, but people waste an exorbitant amount of electricity without consequence. A small amount of sacrifice on the part of people who are living with a reality of climate change doesn't seem unreasonable. Few share this sentiment. Fortunately, another means of efficiency has surfaced with the design of energy efficient buildings. Secretary Steven Chu from the U.S. Deparment of Energy (DOE) wrote an article recently titled Energy Vision 2010: Towards a More Energy Efficient World where he said, "Improving the efficiency of buildings, which account for 40% of U.S. energy use, is truly low-hanging fruit" (qtd. by NREL). National Journal hosts a blog made up of energy and environmental experts where O'Brien-Bernini notes that of the percentage of energy consumption by buildings, which in 2008 was 41%, that "[t]his was split at 22% residential and 19% commercial." He adds that "there are about 129 million homes and over 70 billion square feet of commercial space" noting that "in general, [they are] performing poorly from an energy efficiency standpoint." The Massachusetts Technology Collaborative conducted research to find out how much it costs to build green, energy efficient buildings. They were surprised when they learned that ""[t]he average premium for these green buildings is slightly less than 2%, or $3-5/ft2" (Kats).
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory went beyond the previous design of "Green" buildings with its 219,000 square foot prototype of the Research Support Facility (RFL). The core would be a 25 kBtu per square foot per year, which is one third of the energy use of an average commercial building. The NREL offers their designs, analysis, and field monitoring support to residential projects conserving up to 50% of energy use. They have also formed partnerships with companies like Best Buy, Kohls, Supervalu, Target, Whole Foods, and CB Richard Ellis who are working toward saving 30% energy use in current buildings and 50% in new buildings.
For the first time in a while, the White House is being lead by someone who embraces these issues and has put agencies in place like the NREL in order to push change. Barack Obama understands that the polar ice caps are shrinking and the sea levels are rising. Extreme weather is surfacing and worsening all over the globe and numerous species are threatened with extinction. This is a result of the abuse that the environment has endured at the hands of humanity. In a life or death matter, money cannot be the only consideration. If environmental issues are a concern, vote. Vote for people who support the same, this is how change comes about. An energy policy that draws on the uses of renewable energy sources and biofuels, in conjunction with energy efficient technologies, will put the U.S. on an eco friendly path to renewing the world.
