Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
December 08, 2005
clean air?
The Clean Air Act was created in 1943 to reduce the amount of smog and atmospheric pollution (Wikipedia). “The use of the federal government and state and local governments to enforce clean air standards has contributed to an improvement of the health of Americans” (Wikipedia). Basically the Clean Air Act requires major point sources to obtain a permit to put emissions into the air. Once they have the permit they are supposed to maintain certain standards that are enforced mainly by fees (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa02.html#topic2e); fees that are in my opinion way to low. If a company can just get out of updating there equipment by paying a small fine then what are the incentives to not polluting. We need to have stronger punishments such as closing a company down that does not meet certain standards until they comply with the standards that were created to protect us all.
Posted by Kacy Bobzien at 09:55 AM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Bush + Greenhouse Gases= true love?
President Bush just signed an agreement with several other energy companies, to construct a coal burning power plant that does not produce any emissions. Environmentalists and several others have criticized the plans for this power plant, saying that is merely a distraction from the emission cuts put in place by the Kyoto Protocol. The United States produces the most harmful emissions into the atmosphere, and we are the ones trying to side-step every amendment and new policy created in regards to emission control. The Bush administration also still tries to deny the link between greenhouse gases and global warming.
There is only so much other nations and senators can do to convince the public and the President of the harmfulness of these emissions. Of course there are things individuals can do like, car-pooling, or riding a bike; buying hybrid cars that produce less carbon-dioxide emissions or urging your senators to make a change in the current policy. There needs to be a push for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in the US. The question is, who is going to lead that push? There are only a few Republican’s speaking out against the President about this issue. Democrats need to step up, and spark a change.
The prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin is directly targeting the US for many of the problems Canadian Inuit’s are facing with the changing global climate. "To the reticent nations, including the United States, I say this: There is such a thing as a global conscience," Martin said. "And now is the time to listen to it." Here’s a newsflash to the US—this problem is not going away, and the longer Bush puts this issue on the back burner, the more other nations, and Americans are going to notice what he’s NOT doing.
I read a few articles by Andrew Revkin, from the New York Times.
Posted by Anna Racer at 08:55 AM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
December 07, 2005
Biofuels; The Way of the Future
One of the largest political issues that we face today is our dependency on foreign oil. What if we could supply our entire fuel need domestically? Many people would say that we do not have the resources to do so but all we have to do is turn to farmers. One may ask how would farmers help with the aquisition and consumption of fossil fuels. The article Move Over, Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels would argue that biofuels and biomass are our answer to energy dependence. According to this source the United States would not only be creating three times as much fuel than we import, we also would cut down carbon emissions by 1.7 billion tons per year. Not only would using biofuel cut down our dependence on foreign oil, it would help us with the issue of global climate change.The benifits go on, there would be an increased demand for farmers since there would be so much fuel in demand. There doesn't seem like there are any problems with biofuel so why is it not being used right now?
Opponents of biofuel argue that it is much less efficient than gasoline and that it cost more. This is true at the moment. If the government subsidized and gave research money for biofuels they would not only become cheaper they would become more efficient and more easily made. Since biofuels are made with only the kernels of and not from a whole plant it is hard to make mass amounts of biofuels. But if a plant called switchgrass was used we could make the entire plant into fuel. This plant would allow the U.S. to create enough fuel to quench our energy thirst.
There is also the problem that runnoff and soil erosion would increase because more cropland would be used. If the plant that I mentioned before(switchgrass) was used instead of corn the runoff and erosion would not be a problem. Switchgrass does not erode the soil as much as corn and has very low nitrogen runoff.
As of today biofuels could not be used as our main source of energy but if our government began to invest in them it could solve national issues and create many jobs. The problem is that since we are so dependent on gasoline we will not even think about using an alternate fuel source. Things that could be done are give incentives for using biofuel and making standards for cars to create only a certain amount of emissions. Until our country begins to relize the potential of biofuels we will stay in this habit of using a dirty expensive energy source
NRDC "Move Over, Gasoline: Here Come Biofuels" Dec. 2005
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/biofuels.asp
Posted by Brian Beck at 09:49 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Kyoto Protocol
Montreal, Canada was very busy today with the United Nations Climate Change Conference. This conference was held in an effort to continue discussing the Kyoto Protocol and its effectiveness as well as gain more participants. Though 180 countries have signed on, many big carbon dioxide producers such as the United States and Australia have not, and for good reason. The Kyoto Protocol is not doing enough. By excluding undeveloped countries from having to sign and not asking for very much of a reduction from its participants, it is more of an economic burden without the environmental benefit. New legislation needs to be written asking for more reduction of carbon dioxide within all countries of the world, developing or not. If global warming continues at current rates, island nations could be taken by the sea as glaciers melt and raise seal levels, great numbers of people will be displaced, temperatures in higher latitudes will rise and fertile croplands could turn to deserts.
Though it is largely ineffective (in regards to reducing total emissions), the Protocol has accomplished the goal of raising awareness of the issue of global warming and beginning the necessary process of reduction in emissions. French President Jacques Chirac made a good summation of the need for greater efforts than the Kyoto Protocol during a video conference today. He said, “Even if scientific uncertainties remain, the accumulation of evidence, the visible changes to the environment, the multiplication of extreme (weather) events bear witness to a phenomenon that no one can seriously contest any longer." He followed this by asking the world to create a new protocol that would include all nations and would involve decreasing emissions 50% by 2050. This is the type of regulation we need in order to end the threat of global warming. The U.N. Climate Change Conference shows that the world recognizes the need and the responsibility we have to lower dangerous emissions that are heightening global warming. Global warming has the potential to cause great damage to many areas of the world. The Kyoto Protocol is a step in slowing this down, but is not practical. It needs to involve all of humanity and needs to require a much higher decrease in emissions in order to make a difference and help protect the planet and its people.
Posted by Carla Inderrieden at 03:42 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Benefiting from this wind
One of the questions from the problem set we handed in the other day had to do with what we thought was which energy source would be most sustainable in Minnesota. You could make a case for almost any source, but why wouldn't wind, water, and sun be the most logical - and maybe most susatainable. We have water (10,000+ lakes), we have wind (as experienced in the past week), and we have sun (I think I remember seeing it). According to BP.com, their 22.5 megawatt wind farm in the Netherlands "provided sufficient clean electricity to power 20,000 homes and displaced some 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide" in its first tear of operation. Would it not be safe to assume that the same results could occur here in Minnesota with all of its flat land and open space, allowing wind to gust freely?
Posted by Christopher Harrington at 12:57 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Is solar power in Minnesota an oxymoron?
I think that we as a country and individually should be using alternate forms of energy. I own a duplex, and have been investigating the pros and cons of installing solar panels. I found a web site called mrsolar.com they offer solar panel packages that do not have battery systems, the solar panels are there to offset energy usage. Any excess power that you do not use is put back into the system and you are given credit for it. These systems are referred to as “on the grid” meaning that you will still be hooked up to your local electrical supplier.
The fist thing I was told do is conserve. They said start at your lights; if you use all compact fluorescent lights (CP light), which are still bright but save substantial power, you can save 55 watts of power per bulb. I think that this is good advice that can benefit everybody. After the conservation recommendation I was told to find our average kWh usage per month. I then found that throughout the entire house we use about 1100 kWh of power each month. The company supplied a chart which showed the average sun patterns and found that if I wanted to have 100 percent of my electric bill paid by using solar energy I would have to have enough room for 1000 square feet of roof space that is unblocked by sun, facing south and not at an angle of more than 30 degrees. My house is tall so blockage is not a problem and the roof is not at an angle greater than 30 degrees, however I only have 550 square feet of space on the southern side of my house. With an area that size I would be able to produce about 600 kWh per month. They had a system that size that would cost $36,682, not including installation. Wow! According to my current energy bill if you include taxes and fees I pay approximately 11 cents per kWh. If I produce 600 kWhs per month that’s $66 dollars the system could save me. At that rate it would take me 46 years to pay back the investment, not including the instillation. I would imagine that the panels might need some sort of maintenance over those 46 years and that would increase the cost higher. It would be different if I lived in Arizona, New Mexico or the southwest in general, with the same amount of solar panels I could produce 840 kWh per month. It would then take only 33 years to pay for the package. I also found some other grid packages on the Solatron Technologies web site that had prices varying between $33,000 and $40,000 for a similar amount of energy output. I found an “off the grid” package at solardepot.com that would run $60,823 for about the same power output. Their package would come with a battery and work with a generator, not included, and is intended to provide all the power I could use.
After all this research I still believe in exploring alternate sources of energy production but it seems to me that if you want to use solar panels to produce electricity in Minnesota you either have to be very rich or be willing to pay a lot of money for the environmental benefits of solar energy. Many of the sites I looked at encouraged people to start with just two panels and add from there. This would reduce the initial cost which makes it better in the short run but it still would take years to payback the original investment. I think that what I’ll do next to my house is replace the windows, a smaller investment $14,000, and a quicker return, especially with the cost of gas this year. My house is of 1920’s origin and the windows are stock. I now understand why many of my neighbors, 3 this year, are replacing their windows and not putting up solar panels.
Posted by Brooke Anderson at 08:30 AM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
December 05, 2005
Find more energy or conserve what we have?
The biggest debates in the new lately are "Where are we going to get our energy from in the up coming century?" and "How long is oil going to last?" While we look for new and renewable energy source we should as a nation focus more on conservation. The United States alone uses 24 percent of all the worlds’ energy according to (www.energyguide.com as of 1998). That is almost a quarter of the world’s energy for about 8 percent of the world’s population. As prices of fossil fuels and energy consumption rise should be changing out our out of date incandescent light bulbs for longer lasting, energy efficient compact fluorescent bulbs. As home owner we should change our appliances to energy star ones. Most people don't do this because they think only about the purchase price and in doing so they are not being smart shoppers. Switching light bulbs alone can be a noticeable difference in you electric bill, speaking from personal experience, and the light will last you up to 5 year. Well worth the 3 dollar per light price tag when you consider that it takes ten incandescent light bulbs to last as long as a compact fluorescent bulb. As for energy star appliances the same goes for them in the sense that a smart shopper wanting to save the most money should pay for the extra cost of the purchase. If you were to replace your thermostat with and energy star one you could save a hundred dollars a year. Add that to having all energy star appliances and new light bulbs. It could save you thousands while you lived in you home. There are also other incentives to having an energy smart home. If it is energy saving enough you could be considered an energy star home and get tax deductions for it. These are ideas that should be used by the general public. I believe once the general pubic truly understand how much they can save in their pockets then they will change the way they use energy at home. The question is will the simple workings of economics work its way towards that point fast enough? It's amazing how little a lot of people know about Energy star and how it can help them. From personal experience again, my parents are building a house in the process of this I have been urging my parents to make their new home energy star quality. My mother didn't know what energy star was nor had she ever seen a compact incandescent light bulb, or at least never bothered to look at them thinking that the light would be to "unnatural." I had to plug in one of mine to show it to her and to show how natural the light was. People need to become more informed on their options for conservation or energy and money.
Posted by Thomas Evers at 12:07 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
November 18, 2005
Wind Energy
Energy is a huge issue we face today, we have to face how we are going to get it as well as where we are going to get it from. It is no longer something we can just take forgranted, becasue now we have to think about the consiquences it has on our environment as well as its efficeny and availability. There are many different sources for energy, but the one I would like to focus on is wind energy. I think that Minnesota should look more into using wind energy because it is much better for our environment than using fossil fuels. Wind energy is a renewable resource and it is also economically smart. Our text book, Environmental Science, says, "Currently, wind farms are the cheapest source of new power generation, costing as little as 3 cents/kWh compared to 4 to 5 cents/kWh for coal and five times that much for nuclear fuel." Another point the textbook makes about wind energy is that it takes a third of the area need to create electrical energy, and at the same time it creates about 5 times as many jobs, so we are being more efficent with our land resources and helping with unemployment. Some people argue that wind machines are not dependable enough and have functioning errors. However, the new modern wind machines are only out of commission for maintenance for three days a year, on average, and most can produce power 90 percent of the time. Modern windmills are theoretically 60 percent efficent, and typically produce 35 percent of peak capacity under field conditions. Some people feel that building wind machines causes too much damage to the land. However, as I already stated, wind farms take up a third the space as plants that create elecrical energy. Wind farms, also, have a much shorter planning time and construction time than fossil fuel or nuclear power plants. People still tend to complain about wind machines and say that they are not aesthetically pleasing, however that is an opinion, and not a factual arguement. Another issue that people bring up with concerns about wind machines is the harm they may bring to birds, such as birds flying into them and killing themselves. In response to this concern, wind machines have been made larger, and this is bringing down the death rates of birds due to accidents with wind machines. Arguements can be made against wind machines, but the arguements for them appear to be much stronger when considering conservation of energy and economics. A fifty-meter-tall wind tower with a 750 kW generator (about the size of a minivan) can generate enough electricity for about 75 homes (Courtesy National Renewable Energy Laboratory/NREL/PIX). This is something we can do right here in Minnesota, as well, and it is actually already taking place. You can go to www.me3.org to learn more about how you can switch to wind energy to help our environment and help conserve our other natural resources. Xcel Energy is the main energy provider for the Twin Cities, and they actually do sell wind energy to homes, so it is possible to switch right now. The switch would save you money, as well as help our environment. One large plus to wind energy is that it does not have air emmissions, which helps with reducing global warming. There are limitations with wind power, as there are with any sources of energy, but overall wind energy is an excellent alternative to energy from fossil fuels. I highly suggest looking into making the switch, it will help your pocket book out as well as your environment, especially the air you breath. It is up to us to make changes in our lifestyles to make positive changes for the world around us, and switching to wind energy would be a step in the right direction.
Posted by Brittany Hayes at 04:57 PM | Comments (1) | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
November 09, 2005
Cleaning Coal?
If one sees the title "How to Make Clean Coal" they are most certainly going to be interested. We all know that most of our power is created by coal burning plants. This may be that coal is 10 times more abundant than other fossil fuels such as oil and gas. Why wouldn't we use a energy source so vast and inexpensive to power our countries growing energy needs. The fact that it adds to things such as global warming and acid rain as we talked about in the previous chapters gives some unwanted side effects. But if what the article "How to Make Clean Coal" by Craig Canine is true, maybe our least environmentally friendly energy source can get a bit greener.
This article begins by explaining how coal is formed and how they extract it. Then it begins to tell about how they are making coal cleaner. They do this by a process called gasification. This is done by bringing the special type of coal to a temperature of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit in a chamber. Through this process it breaks the coal down into elements such as carbon monoxide, hydrogen, sulfur, and many others. The product that they are trying to get is methane. After this is extracted there are many by products left from the gasification process. But many of these can be sold because they have values in other industries. Even Co2 can be sold to companies for use. This is really how the coal is being put out as clean. What the main use of this Co2 is right now would be for use by oil companies. They would use the gas to shoot into the ground to get the oil to float to the surface making it more easily accesable. This increases the lifespan of each oilfield meaning that that we could decrease the amount of searching for new places to drill for oil. The other thing that can be done with the Co2 would be to bury it deep into the earths crust under impermiable layers of rock. This would vastly limit the amount of greenhouse gasses that would be entering the atmosphere. If the US adopts this new way of purifying coal and using all of its by products we may be looking at alot better energy source.
Although all these solutions look good there seems to be some flaws with what this technology is doing. First off, if we use the spent Co2 to increase the production of oil this would in turn increase the use of fossil fuels. This would only exaserbate our current problem of Co2 emissions into the atmosphere. Also the idea of deep geologic burial is a bit suspicous for the disposal of large amounts of Co2. It is said that if there is good formations with impermiable surfaces as much as 50,000 billion tons of Co2 can be stored. The problem is that what if all of this gas is buried and the escapes in a way that we do not expect. This will not have solved the problem at all. We also do not know what effect storing mass quantities of carbon gas would have on our earths crust and geologic formations. These problems need to be addressed before we decided to keep using coal even if it is said to be clean.
The idea of breaking down coal and using all of the parts of it for different things is a very good idea. If we are capable of storing and using the greenhouse gas Co2 that would greatly improve our current standing on global warming. Also if we can properly store this greenhouse gas many people might turn to support this energy source that is currently far from green. But if the consequences are not taken into consideration we may have larger problems in our future.
Canine, Craig "How to Clean Coal." OnEarth Nov. 2005
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal1.asp
Cunningham, William P. Environmental Science: A Global Concern. McGraw-Hill, 2005
Posted by Brian Beck at 09:39 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Oil Companies and Prices
I recently read an article in the StarTribune concerning the rise of gas prices by major gas corporations. Now this seemed reasonable to me in the wake of the southern hurricanes, but it was made known in this article that while gas prices were rising to prices above $3 per gallon, major gas corporations saw $32.8 billion in profits from July-September (StarTribune). There is a growing suspicion that oil companies are taking unfair advantage,'' said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. "The oil companies owe the American people an explanation.''
Gas leaders attribute this increase to reacting to the market, and that petroleum earnings go up and down. Top executives of major oil companies are receiving million dollar bonuses at the expense of the consumer. From my point of view it looks like the government should put some kind of restrictions on the oil market if they are hiking up prices for reasons that clearly arent making a big impact on their production. Lee Raymond, chairman of ExxonMobil Corp. said, It would be a mistake, said Raymond, for the government to impose punitive measures hastily crafted in response to short-term market fluctuations.''
I disagree with Raymond on this matter. Looking at the big picture it may seem unfair to react to short-term effects such as these, but looking specifically at this case is a different story. Gas prices raised over a dollar, resulting in huge profits for these oil companies, being that in the short-run oil is an inelastic product that people will need to keep consuming with out any good alternatives. The general public was forced to pay these higher prices as a result of what was thought to be natural disasters, but it turns out that they had little effect on oil companies. When oil companies can use horrific events such as hurricanes Rita and Katrina to make a profit something needs to be done.
After September 11th, the government froze oil prices to ensure nothing like this would happen. I think that part of the solution to this would be to punish these oil companies in some way, but especially to find ways to ensure that this type of situation will not occur again after any crisis.
Posted by Jesse Tannuzzo at 07:27 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
November 08, 2005
Hybrid Cars: the Solution to the Oil debate, or a temporary band-aid to it?
This past week i had to work on a project for chemistry class, in which the topic was hybrid cars. While researching this topic i found many benifits. Most are obvious, such as lower greenhouse gas emissions and less gas used. But there are also disadvantages. i feel that there are 2 major reasons of why hybrid cars haven't taken off, the waiting list and the initial cost. Everyone always talks about the benefits of them, so i feel that it would be appropraite to give the other side of the argument.
The major reason why hybrids have not taken off as the car of the future is its excessive waiting line to get one. According to a story on the Hybrid Car website (www.hybridcars.com), the Ball Family had to wait months and months to receive their car after their deposit had been cashed. They would receive updates from the dealer but thats all they received for the first year. The reason why there is a waiting line on the Hybrid car is because the major car companies do not receive the same profit that they receive from regular cars, and therefore they do not produce as many as they could. In a few years when the production becomes more cost effective there will be more cars produced. This year alone major car companies released new models of Hybrid cars as well as more of the traditional models.
The other major reason of why hybrids are not everywhere is because they retail at a higher price then that of the comparable non-hybrid car. According to the Hybrid Cars website they cost about $3000-$6000 more than a typical car. And according to www.Ineed2know.coms article on hybrid cars it could take 10-15 years to make the extra money spent on the hybrid back in money saved at the pump.
Posted by Adam Krieger at 12:44 PM | Comments (2) | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
November 07, 2005
China's Renewable energy.
The Chinese government has made a move to spend 180 billion dollars with in the next 15 year to produce more renewable energy. That is a significant amount of money to be directed to one specific cause. I think China should be a leading example on what every country should already be striving for. In the United States there is only a call for such an expansion when the general public starts to fell the affects to their wallet. This shouldn't be the case. We should take a page from China's playbook and start expanding our production of renewable energy before we get in to major issues.
China plans to replace 40 million tons of coal each used each year with 300 cubic meters of solar heater by 2020. They are also hoping to replace ten million tons of petroleum with bio fuels. Other plans consist of expanding the wind and hydrogen power production. All in all this is supposed to lead to a tenth of China's power to be renewable.
Now I am not saying that the rest of the world is just setting around for huge energy crisis before they start doing something. Many countries do have programs and incentives toward pushing for renewable resources. I feel as a global community we should move swifter in the race toward renewable energy. The United States is a capitalist society and it will more likely be not the government that ends up bringing a new age of renewable energies to our country, but instead it will be private business as prices of technology fall and peoples interest grow stronger.
We can already see minor changes it the way we power our world and our country. Wither it is a solar panel or a light panel directing traffic around road construction or on a drive cross country and seeing more windmills on the countryside. We are progressing, but is that fast enough?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051107/sc_afp/chinaenvironment_051107164254
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051106/sc_nm/energy_china_renewables_dc_1
Posted by Thomas Evers at 01:01 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
October 19, 2005
Nuclear Waste
We all know that right now nuclear energy is being pushed as a clean power. It does not give off harmful emissions that cause many environmental problems. One might ask why would anybody be against nuclear power if it is environmentally friendly. The problem is that after the uranium rods have been spent they have no place to go. Its not like they can just be thrown away anywhere and be forgotten. The rods are radio active after they are done being used. But the real problem is that they are not radio active for a few years, they are radioactive for 10,000 years.
What place is proposed to store this substance that is toxic for 10,000 years? It is the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository site in Nevada. Some might be wondering why nuclear waste hasn't begun to be shipped there already. This is because officials are having trouble getting it approved. Things such as falsified scientific documents to government officials from workers at Yucca. There is also geologic evidence that Yucca is on a fault making it very dangerous to put massive amounts of nuclear waste there. Also the state of Nevada is sueing the national governent so that the nuclear waste repository will not be placed there. Other problems with putting this waste site anywhere is that to maintain something that is so toxic for 10,000 years is hard to imagine. No computer models can tell what is going to happen to this area in that many years.
The argument for having the site in Nevada is that this waste has to go somewhere. The nuclear power plants are not built to hold all of the nuclear waste they produce. If a site is not decided on the power plants will become filled with their own waste. This would be even more dangerous than having a site dedicated solely to holding nuclear waste for long periods of time. Yucca has been tested rigeriously and due to its remote location it seems to be the best solution to this problem.
Looking at these options it seems that there is no best option. But at the moment the only logical choice is to send the waste from the presant nuclear power sites to Yucca Mountain. Even though we can't plan 10,000 years in advance we have made a site that is suited to house radioactive materials for a long period of time which is Yucca mountain. The material is much safer in a facility in which it was designed for instead of being stored in the site it was just used that is filling up to the point in which there is no more room. It seems that sending the waste to Yucca is the best option right now and unless we find an alternative there doesn't seem like there is any reason for delay.
Posted by Brian Beck at 11:59 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Hurricanes and Policy
The record setting hurricane season has left chaos and destruction in its wake, and producing questions as to why hurricanes are getting more frequent, more intense, and more devastating. In an article from the New York Times, the most recent hurricane, Wilma, shows how this season is tied for the most storms in1933, and most hurricanes in 1969. These storms have produced billions of dollars worth of damage and killed thousands of people in both the United States and other afflicted countries. With so much destruction people have to begin to ask why so many, why are hurricanes seemingly getting stronger, and what can our country do as a whole to prevent such destruction?
Possible reasons for the increased frequency of hurricanes include cyclical nature of the weather syste, it has been noted that there are a couple decades of high hurricane activity followed by a few decades of low. Another reason is Global warming, the increased temperature also allows for the formation of more storms. As to the reasons why they are getting more intesne, another article in the new york times, Gulf Currents that Turn Storms into Monsters, states that the increase in global temperature has shifted a warm eddy into the path of hurricanes allowing them to increase in strength and follow the warm currents into the Gulf where they will do optimal damage. As for what can the country do as a whole, for starters get better prepared for more intense storms. However I think the heart of this issue is global warming. If the US were to take a more aggressive approach to curbing global warming, it won't fix the problem immediately, but in the long run it would turn out to be better for everyone. The problem, as usual lies with the politics that govern our country and their inability to see that such actions are for the greater good and for the long haul.
Posted by Jake Soika at 01:55 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
October 18, 2005
Biodiesel and common misconception
As I did research on my debt for Ethanol I came across a lot of articles and blogs that stated a lot of misconceptions about bio fuels. Such as in one article where One journalist stated that a vehicle would have to go though major mechanical changes to use high level of biodiesel. The diesel engine is probably the most flexible engine ever created and people are just now rediscovering this fact. Biodiesel being sold today is usually B20 20% biodiesel and 80% petroleum based diesel. There are two main reasons why B100 (100% biodiesel) isnt being used. First people think that their diesel engine isnt made to run off of vegetable oil based diesel. Second older diesel may use natural rubber in the areas of the vehicle that fuel runs through and bio diesel eats away natural rubber. Most new vehicles use artificial rubber components so they are already ready to use B100.
Now I know I basically said that the journalist was wrong in stating that there needed to be major modifications to the engine and it may look as if I am contradicting myself. But I am not. Changing out the real rubber in a vehicle with artificial rubber is considerably cheap and could be done in one day. Plus the biodiesel cleans out the deposits left behind by petroleum-based diesels, running your vehicle better and longer.
When Rudolph Diesel introduced the diesel engine at the Exhibition Fair in Paris, France in 1898 the only words he said before starting it was Peanut oil and then started it right up. The reason petroleum is use today was because producing it was much cheaper than producing vegetable oil. Today we are going back to that original concept of using vegetable oil as a fuel source; will at least as part of the fuel source.
On a side note, there are even companies that specialize in converting diesel engines to run off of vegetable oil alone. A conversion kit runs about $600 to $800 depending on what company you get it from and what type of kit you get. But dont expect to get a conversion kit from here in the United States because it wont happen. The US patent for a kit was bought off by an oil company and is not expected to show up as a product you can buy anytime soon. But there are two good companies outside the US, one in Canada and one in Germany. If you use waste oil from, say a local restaurant your fuel would be practically free and the restaurant would love to give it to you.
I believe once people are informed properly they will act and this would be a great thing to act on.
There is good information on http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/fuelfactsheets/default.shtm check it out!
Posted by Thomas Evers at 05:23 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
October 13, 2005
Ethanol Production
I have been doing a lot of research on ethanol production lately, and the more I am finding, I am seeing that it is a great alternative to gasoline. According to the National Conference of State Legislators, a governement organization, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/energy/ethinc.htm, in Minnesota there is a $.20 per gallon producer credit. This producer credit applies to the first 15 million gallons per plant per year. According to this site there is a $3 million annual cap per plant. The cap lasts for 10 years from the production of the plant's first start-up. There is no tax exemption on the 10% blend, however there is a $.058 tax exemption on E85.
Tens of millions of Americans' current usage of gasoline for cars does not meet at least one of our countries requirements for the Clean Air Act, according to the US Department of Energy, a government organization, http://www.eere.energy.gov/biomass/environmental.html. However, if we were to switch to using biofuels, such as ethanol, would reduce "visible smoke, odor, and toxic emissions." Some of the toxic emissions that would be reduced are: carbondioxide, hydrocarbons, particulates, nitrogen oxides, air toxins, and mutagencitity. We would also reduce the risk of groundwatercontamination from underground gasoline storage units. This would also reduce the runoff of vehicle engine oil and fuel.
I think that ethanol production should conitue to grow and we should start switching over to using more and more of it. It would help to clean up our air, and though the economic benefits do not seem large at first, they will add up fast. We would also be saving money on the programs we fund to help work towards cleaner air, becasue using ethanol is helping to make our air cleaner. This is not going to be an easy transition, however the process has already started to happen and it is improving our environment. It will take some sacrifices from everyone, such as having ethanol compatable parts put into their cars to update older cars, but the new cars are already being built to be compatible with E85. People are starting to make the change because they can see the rewards that it will bring for the environment, as well as the economy, I think we should all think about making the switch, the data shows us that it is worth it.
Posted by Brittany Hayes at 07:23 PM | Comments (3) | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
September 28, 2005
ANWR Technology
We all know that on the top of of energy agenda is to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. What most do not relize is that even if drilling occurs we have the technology to leave as little impact as possible in the area. The problem is that there are no environmental restrictions on what technology has to be used.
There are many things such as 3-D mapping instead of 2-D mapping which is more accurate and shows exactly where to drill. This means less drilling and more untouched area. There are many other technologies such as using new tires that are much larger, like big balloons that would not crush the surrounding area like normal tires on trucks which are called rolligons, or using coiled tubing instead of 60 meter long interlocking pieces that take more trips to bring in. Also using technology to separate the oil underground instead of having and extra building that separates the water and oil.
If you were an oil company drilling what would be the reason for spending more money to get the same product if you didn't use this technology. It would not be economical and it would seem a bit pointless for them to do. These are all great technologies but unless the government mandates them, the oil companies will shove them aside for cheaper methods. If the bill is passed there doesnt seem to be any doubt that they will use the same technology that has been used in the past. The only thing that can be done it seems is to make it public that there are these better ways of doing things which would be less impactful. I don't think that the oil industry wants video of acres of trees and animals losing their homes if people knew there was a better way. Since everybody is watching this topic so closely in these times of crisis due to such high gas prices, to get this information out doesn't seem increadibly difficult. The ideal situation would be if we would not drill at all in ANWR which would mean no evironmental impact but that might be to much to ask for, so we might have to bend a bit. But we should not let ourselves be broken due to our lack of ambition to save some of this pristine refuge.
Posted by Brian Beck at 11:57 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
ANWR Discussion
So after a long day of classes and exams I returned to my dorm room to do my blog. Somehow my roommate and I got into a disagreement about drilling and the Artic National Wildlife Refuge. I found it very interesting her views on the issue because she is in going into a natural resource major, however, she is a conservative republican. I on the other hand i am a very liberal minded environmental science major so you can imagine how our debate was going. I was shocked to actually find out how much my roommate and didn't have in common on certain issues after seeing how well we have lived together this past month.
We discussed how the roads would disrupt the natural migration patterns of animals as well as sectioning off areas of wilderness removing the natural niches, top prediatros and so on as well creating inpurvious surfaces. My roommate did not see these as issues, she thought that it wouldn't cause too much of a problem. This lead to another problem, whos to say that the government would stop at this one thing. If drilling was allowed how far would they take their drilling? Would there still be high regulations in the area especially on the matter if drilling if it was allowed? Where else would the government try to go and destroy? My roommate said that the drilling would only take up a small amount of space. But would that really be true? i dont believe so. I do not see the government in it's current state taking the environment in it's priorties. Because if that was the case, they wouldn't even see drilling as being an option. However it is the option that this nation is faced with right now. I hope that there can be sence put into the minds of our politicans so that we can keep this pristine wildlife refuge maintained in it's natural beauty, not converted into a texas styled drilling factory.
Posted by Sadie Schuldt at 11:30 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
technology is the Key
The way I see it the main environmental problems of today can be solved with technology. The other alternative is to ask/force the world to consume less, and this is not very likely. Hydrogen in the future will provide the world with clean energy. The fusion between two hydrogen atoms is the key to electricity in the future. It meets all the criteria for a good source of power. It is clean, safe, and provides an enormous amount of energy. This is backed by www.fusion.org
The major conclusions reached by the SEAFP team in 1995 were that fusion has very good inherent safety qualities; there are no chain reactions and no production of 'actinides'. The worst possible accident originating in a fusion power station could not breach the confinement; any releases could not approach levels at which evacuation would be considered.
The radiotoxicity of a fusion power station's waste materials decays rapidly, and they present no accumulating or long-term burden on future generations. They would not need guaranteed isolation from the environment for very long time spans. In addition to these favorable results, fusion produces no climate-changing or atmosphere-polluting emissions.
When fusion is developed and integrated into a powerplant it will be able to provide power for generations to come.
Hydrogen will also power our cars. Most of the major car companies including Honda, Toyota, and ford are all developing hydrogen cars. A hydrogen car works by passing hydrogen atoms through a membrane which removes the electron from the hydrogen. The hydrogen then combines with oxygen which then requires more electrons so the electrons that were striped from the hydrogen move toward the oxygen mixing with the hydrogen. When the hydrogen meets the oxygen, the urge for an electron becomes greater and thus more electrons are needed keeping the cycle going and producing a current. The current is then used to power an electric motor which powers the car. When these cars are fully implemented, they will virtually reduce pollution to nothing. The only byproduct from the reaction is water. Technology is the solution to our environmental problems.
Posted by William Quinn at 10:56 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
Using elephant grasses for power
I recently read an article that talked about using a strain of elephant grasses to provide power to Europe. The grass grows higher than 12' and needs little fertilizer to produce high yields. The idea is that the grass would be used as a sort of biomass, where after it was grown it would be burned to produce electricity. The reason that this is such a good thing is that the amound of CO2 released into the atmosphere would be considered zero. Thats because what the plant absorbs during its life is released as it is burned. It is also a renewable energy resource and would be very useful in curbing the exponential increase of CO2 into the atmosphere. This article can be found in
I'm not sure how I feel about using biomass as an energy source. I do agree with the fact that it is much better than burning fossil fuels, but is it really a solution to the problem? With so much research going into solar, wind, and hydrogen energy sources this could serve as a transitional option. And after that it should only really be used to supplement energy supplies around the world. I don't like the idea of setting aside huge tracts of land to grow these grasses, creating a monoculture that provides little habitat to animals. I do however believe that if we were to acquire our biomass from proper forest management techniques it would kill two birds with one stone. The idea is to clear forests of superfluous and dangerous brush that causes normal fires to jump to devastating crown fires. I think that using biomass that comes from such efforts would have a very positive effect on the environment. However it may not be so realistic, and not probable due to the cost of such a venture. I guess when it comes down to it, using these grasses are a good compromise and I would support their use however I still think there are better options. Another issue is introducing this to the U.S. but thats a totally different story.
Posted by Jake Soika at 01:16 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy
Category "6. Energy, Economics, and Policy"
September 27, 2005
Hybrid Cars
Consider this...
Jane, your average American citizen, drives an SUV to work everyday. Its 25 miles there, and 25 miles back, and she works 5 days out of every week. That means that every week, just to work, Jane drives 250 miles. Lets say that gas is an even $3.00 a gallon, and her SUV gets an average of 17 miles per gallon.
Now lets say that Jane decides to trade in her old car for a new hybrid car. She still drives 250 miles a week, and gas is still $3.00 a gallon, but now she gets 32 miles per gallon.
If one does the math, they find that Janes annual fuel cost when she owned the SUV was $2,294. And when she traded the SUV in for the hybrid? Her annual fuel cost drops to $1,218, almost halving her fuel expenses.
In this day and age, with fuel prices what they are, alternatively-fueled vehicles just make sense. Not only does the owner benefit, the environment does too: Janes gas-guzzling SUV would have turned out about 10 tons of greenhouse emissions per year, while the hybrid would have been much further down the scale, at only about 5 tons a year.
Just in case one needs more evidence that hybrid cars are worth the switch, consider where fuel comes from. We are incredibly dependant on countries on the other side of the globe for this very limited resource. The drilling of oil is also causing extensive environmental damage.
Of course, there are a few advantages to gasoline-powered cars. They dont have batteries that run out and have to be charged. Car and fuel companies are against them because these industries would lose money if the hybrid car movement took off.
In my opinion our earth -and our economy- would be better off if we took steps towards ending our dependence on oil for fueling our transportation needs.
To view the fuel usage and greenhouse emissions of other cars, go to: www.fueleconomy.gov
Posted by Brianna Parry at 08:52 PM | 6. Energy, Economics, and Policy