It used to be so easy. For tens of thousands of years, humans used wood-burning fire to heat their dwellings, to cook their food, to forge simple tools. Tens of thousands of years before that, human’s ancestors harnessed the power of fire, giving them a hunting advantage over other animals. Then, the population started to increase, especially after the Plague had ravaged much of the world’s population. Wood became scarce, especially in places of dense population, such as England. The increasing rarity of the resource made the demand for another source of energy greater than the demand of wood itself. This was mitigated by cost.
Unfortunately, these carbon emitting sources are still abundant, and the only thing mitigating the obscene overuse of these polluting solids, liquids, and gases is political control held by the the governments who house these resources, such as the Middle East and North America. Though many renewable sources of energy have been discovered and researched, their implementation has not been taken seriously until very recently, and still only in the most developed countries. Emerging economies such as China and India, are consuming fossil fuels at rates never before seen. Cities like Beijing, China’s Capital and home to twenty million people, has unbreathable air for much of the year. Higher rates of lung, throat, and tongue cancer are being reported across all age groups, yet the only reason China’s energy use is decreasing is that as their economy emerges, the demand for higher paying jobs increases, making manufacturing and final products are more expensive. As a result, trading partners such as the United States are looking to countries that still have developing or transitioning economies for cheaper manufacture. It remains to be seen how China will react to this slump in exports. Will they work on higher quality branding? If so, they may move to more sustainable energy.
China is only a part of the problem. Highly developed nations still don’t take renewable energy seriously because of the availability of fossil fuels, and the fact that fossil fuels currently are more energy efficient in Joules per unit of molecular weight (this is expressed and measured in multiple different ways). This short-sightedness on the part of Congress, State and Local politicians and manufacturers is disheartening. It seems obvious that as we research more, new tools that are more efficient in harvesting several different sources of renewable energy will emerge.
Luckily, the current administration of the United States, as well as several parliaments throughout Europe, have invested heavily on this type of research and construction. Millions of new jobs have been made available in the United States alone in an effort to make renewable energy a mainstay (IRENA, 2013). Recently, 185 countries came together to agree on sweeping carbon emission reductions, which can really only be implemented with a change in energy sourcing. Making commitments on paper is easy though, and honestly, many of these countries don’t use enough energy to really even be concerned at all about this Obama-originated treaty.
It is very hard to predict at what point each country will start to seriously commit to sustainable non-carbon reaction. One factor to consider is whether or not global society will continue along with its usual trajectory of not committing to another source of energy until it has depleted the current source of energy. This would could be because of liquid financial loss on the part of carbon-emitting energy producers. However, most oil and gas industries are investing heavily on green energy. The other factor to consider is whether or not we have invested enough, and discovered enough, to make renewable energy viable. Right now, after 50 years of desperately trying to harness these sources, we have made little progress. Until we can make renewable energy consistent and not completely dependent on things like wind patterns, sunny or cloudy days, or the temperature of geothermal energy.
It did not help that we started out with the riskiest of non-carbon energy. Shortly after the development and use of the nuclear bomb, we began attempts to harness Nuclear energy. Generally, it has become a safe source of energy, with the exception that many Nuclear plants are aging and the reactors will probably need to be removed and put into newer, safer facilities. For instance, in the United States, Nuclear power plants are placed near rivers, a precautionary way of emergency cooling in the event of a meltdown. The problem is usually that the rivers being used are also rivers that surrounding communities are reliant upon. Even if the water is pumped in, the fallout will still probably contaminate these water sources. The biggest risk has proven to be human error, as was the case on Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl. None of this means that Nuclear power will not one day be a completely safe renewable source. We should stop investigating new armaments as much as we do, and focus on Hydrogen works, as it is still something that baffles scientists.
Solar and Wind power, as of now, are still relatively inefficient sources of energy. They produce no where near the output per weight as fossil fuels. People may use this as an argument to not invest in harnessing these resources, but recent advances, especially in how to harvest and store wind energy, have made it a more lucrative research item. There are three different types of windmills, all with varying levels of energy output and energy storage in case of wind-free days. There was mention in the book of a possible risk to wind farms due to inclement weather (Montgomery,. It is worth noting that many, if not most, wind farms are in the Midwest, right in the middle of Tornado Alley. Tornadoes have passed through these farms, and only a few reported cases of a wind mill rendered a complete loss has occurred. With strategic placement of wind farms, the brunt of severe storms can largely be avoided.
Solar is a bit less cost efficient, and damage is a lot more likely. Solar cells are made with very fragile glass refractories, and even one slight angular differential on a cell can cause it to weaken. Still, there are subsidies provided to homes that invest in solar energy, so many people have added units to their houses.It does seem tobe lowering energy bills, on avergae, for people with these units, whch makes this a wonderful but much more localized energy source. It is rather debatable whether solar power will become a primary energy source in the near future, however Germany has managed to make it a completely reliable resource, along with other technology (Germany Trade & Invest, 2015).
Geothermal energy seems to be very promising. There are several small faults throughout the planet where it would be safe to harvest very renewable geothermal energy. A couple of risks do exist for this energy source as well. Some wells prove to open up lines of poisonous and even lethal chemicals, such as arsenic and sulfur. The perceived and somewhat real risk involved with geothermal energy is that it can cause earthquakes. Scientists acknowledge the threat, but have tried to ensure people that earthquakes did occur, they would barely be noticeable, but could conceivably take a toll on structures from surrounding areas. With all that being said, it is important to acknowledge that geothermal energy can be very cost efficient, and renewable for so long as this planet exists.
Biotechnologists have developed several different types of biofuel, especially through the growth and proliferation of ever-present species of bacteria. Biofuels can technically come a variety of natural sources. The discovery and subsequent research of biofuels was to use these fuels as a replacement of fossil fuels coming from the Middle East in an effort to gain energy independence from these foreign operatives. Aside from that, unfortunately, biofuel still releases carbon into the atmosphere. Therefore, biofuel, though a renewable energy source, is not a sustainable source.
With all these options available to developed countries why hasn’t more action been taken until now, and is it enough action? There are several things to consider when pondering this question.
First, we still seem to be on target for nor not completely moving to renewable energy at 100% anytime soon. Right now, twenty percent is considered a huge benchmark of success in the world of clean energy. That means that 80 percent of our homes, businesses and schools will still be tied down by the companies to which their energy sources rely. Eighty percent is not an impressive number, but it goes to show how reliant we have become on energy . Almost every activity we partake in requires outside energy, whether it is the friday night lights of a local high school football team, or a skyscraper in Manhattan, or perhaps a person had just enough for an older used car that has no eco-drive capabilities. Not everybody is a fan of the Prius, even as identical as the ride is.
One incentive that many developed countries have developed over the past two decades is to look at the sad state of affairs in cities like Beijing. It is hard to think that the Olympics took place there only eight years ago. Now, when looking at aerial pictures, a person can no longer see what was once an absolutely beautiful skyline. Footage from inside the city shows everybody wearing medical face masks, the city streets and buildings resembling what cities look like after they have been thoroughly attacked by a bomb raid. Looking at footage of this city alone warns us of how important it is to this plant that we have green sources.
There are two possibilities, once again, of how developed countries could handle this struggle to save the environment. The first is to let the carbon emitting energy sources continue to oppress humanity, killing every tree, depleting every oil and gas source in its way. In this scenario, we once again just depend on and the basic laws of supply and demand run its course. Hopefully it is not too late when we figure everything out.
The other possibility is for people to see the writing on the wall, to call their senators and plead with them to invest more in renewable energy, regardless of the motive. How can we stand by and see the obvious signs of serious climate change, without demanding that those in power take a stand, ignoring their lobbyists for just once in their careers, to make meaningful changes in the way energy is produced.
The transition to carbon-free sustainable energy, overall, is very unclear. Other considerations not mentioned prior include are economics and financial recessions and crises that we have yet to encounter, as well as severe population movements, something that could happen soon with the drying up of the Himalayan Basins snow pack, which has provided water for almost 2 billion people. It is completely certain that if we choose, as a human race, to not demand changes and more research/development, we will fail as a race, and our population will become endangered. We will only have ourselves to blame.
Works Cited
Germany Trade & Invest. “Germany’s Renewable Energy Revolution,” youtube.com. 2015.
Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
IRENA. “Rethinking Energy: Executive Summary.” International Renewable Energy Agency.
2013. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
Montgomery. “The Powers That Be: Global Energy for the Twenty-First Century and Beyond.”
Moodle web portal. Nd. Web. 14 Apr. 2016.
