Alternative Sources Of Energy In The World
Jacob A. Hawkins
The former governor of New Jersey, Christie Todd Whitman, who is now the head of the U.S EPA spoke casually with some of the anchors from National Geographic Today about the U.S and the rest of the world as we were drawing near to Earth Day. Whitman seemed overly optimistic in the article about how people have a better understanding of what needs to happen if we are to take care of the environment. The interview moved on to the Kyoto agreement and why the U.S. did not sign. Whitman's excuse was that by signing the agreement the U.S. would be damaging it's own economy, and she was concerned about why China and India would not have to participate in the agreement. Since she did not agree with Kyoto the interviewers moved into what kind of plan the U.S. should have. Whitman explained that we still have not really discovered what problems are truly human induced and that we need to research them. Yet she said that many options are being presented to the President. The next issue was the energy crisis that the U.S. is facing right now. She said that what was going on in California was just the beginning and that there was a lot that they could do for the future but not a lot for the short term. Then the article moved onto what type of changes the public can expect to see within the next few years. Whitman stated that the next phase is to have partnerships with the states, municipalities, and businesses to bring about a positive change.
Now to evaluate the article. One was that the interviewers really did not push their questions enough. While reading it I was amazed at how easily they let Whitman dodge some of the more pertinent ideas behind the questions they were asking. Other than that the interview seemed to flow nicely from question to question allowing very little retreat on the part of the interviewers. Yet it seemed they did not push the envelope, they did not drive the issues at hand home.
One of the world's cleanest burning fossil fuels is causing pollution not readily thought of being involved in, water pollution. Natural gas is drilled on coal beds. One of the largest drilling sites is the Powder River Basins in Wyomi 14114c213o ng. In order to drill for natural gas their must be a presence of water pressure under the coal bed. This water pressure holds the gas in place. Yet to get to the gas the water must be drilled out. The residents of the area are complaining about the amount of salty water that is being poured into their soil everyday by the creek that the companies are using to dump this water. One company, Barrett Resources Corp, has 40 to 70 wells in the area is averaging 11 to 12 gallons of water a minute per well. But this is only one of a hundred companies on the river basin. Some studies have been started to see what damage has been done. The studies have determined that with the current levels of rainfall that it would take a century or two to replenish the damaged water. The university of Montana is being called on to investigate the possibility of water pollution being caused by the drilling. If it discovers that this is true then legislation may be passed.
The article was very well written and very informative to the end. It provided the who, what, when, where, and the why that all article need to answer. There was only one complaint that I had. It was that the writer did not import any other ideas as to what may be causing the hardening of the clay and the erosion of the topsoil. He simply followed what the residents believe to be true without any scientific evidence. He should have explored the possibilities a little further. He should have looked further upstream to see what is possibly flowing into the mines and then into the fields.
This next article I about hydrogen cars and their possibility of being sold in 2005. Amory Lovins, who is an energy expert, is the chairman for a new car company that is expected to take off called, Hypercar Inc. They will make a hydrogen-powered car that will revolutionize the automobile industry. Lovins says he had a dream of a car that would get 99 miles tot eh gallon and be emission free. This would be to compete with the 210 million vehicles on the road today that are spilling a billion and a half tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year. Lovins Company's car was built from the tires up. The tires are run flats so the need to carry a spare is eliminated. It uses carbon composites in a plastic matrix for the body, which is more expensive and stronger than steel. Yet it requires less and is cheaper to manufacture. The car will weigh less than 2000 pounds. The car still meets all of the federal safety regulations. With the car weighing less the need for a larger engine is also eliminated. The car will also have a black box in case of accidents. Although there is the problem of fuel. The car will require hydrogen gas to be pumped into the tank as the fuel. This would be difficult due to the fact that there are only a handful of hydrogen stations in the world. Lovins has the solution to this though. He says that the first cars should be leased to companies that are already using hydrogen to power their buildings. This way the car can get it's fuel and while the car is being parked it can be used to power the building.
This article was very well written. It seemed to answer every question that I had while I was reading it. The article seemed rather hopeful that the car would pan out as well as Lovins thought it would. The article kind of touched on the production methods of getting the hydrogen, I would liked to have seen move of an in depth dive into this topic. Because this is how the cars will be fueled.
This article was about some of the rivers on the America's Most Endangered Rivers list. This list included the Missouri River, which was the one of main focus. The river is now one third its original width and runs five times as fast. This can be linked to the six dams that were installed to control the seasonal flooding of the river and to control the barge traffic. American Rivers is the group that publishes the list of the most endangered rivers is advocating a revision of the dam plan on the Missouri that would recreate the seasonal rise and fall of the river. There are thirteen rivers on the list and energy related problems affect six. One of the rivers is the Eel, which provides hydropower for California. Yet hydropower causes more damage than it is worth. The article goes on about the Hudson and the Canning River.
This article was really in depth about the problems that are facing the river systems today. It provided all of the information that is pertinent to the understanding of the problem. The article left me with a real sense of knowledge behind the issue. There was only one thing that I did not really understand why the author dropped the title subject so early on in the article. It was a really good title and then about 4 sentences in she changed gears to fast.
The House of Representatives passed the bill that would allow the oil companies to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This was done by a vote of 240 to 189. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said that by passing this bill it is a victory for America, the economy, and for the environment. Although Minority Leader Richard Gephardt said that it was a giant leap backward. The article goes on to list the provisions that the bill has attached to it. There were many representatives that were quoted in opposition to the bill. Some were in opposition that it would cause a lost of money instead of the supposed economic boost. There was also the wildlife aspect that seemed to be overlooked by the little bit of oil present.
This article was probably the best one that I have read. It was extremely well written and flowed extremely well. The fact that it listed the provisions of the bill added to it's credibility and provided a solid ground for the article to stand on. It allowed the reader to make his or her own judgments about the bill and how it could help or diminish the wildlife reserve.
This article dealt with Bush's administration energy plan to make it easier for energy companies to build nuclear power plants. This would be the first time that nuclear power would be allowed to be built since 1978. This is a giant investment for power companies because it requires millions of dollars and they have to wait up to 10 years to be allowed to build the plant. Yet only one company has said they intend to sign up for the license-required building. That company is Exelon, which is testing a new nuclear reactor in South Africa. It is a pebble bed reactor that will cost one tenth of the price and produce 15% of the power. The article goes on to compare the cost of nuclear power compared to the cost of natural gas. But would this cost be passed along to the consumer is the question, because the companies that are providing nuclear power now charge more for energy than do the natural gas. This is due to the cost of the plants though. This was blamed on deregulation.
This article was a little dry on the information. It did not delve into the issue very well it seemed to just skim the top of the surface and stop. It did however provided many links that should be read in order to better understand it. The cost analysis was very interesting and the comparison and contrast to the natural gas in some states provided a questionable backbone for the energy plan. It got me to thinking that Bush has really no idea what he can do to help with the energy problem; he's just listening to the dollar.
Europe is attempting to introduce a new type of energy source. Wave technology is this source. Ian Bryden is the leader behind this new type of energy. It is going to be provided by multiple 150-foot propellers driven turbines. These will be placed between Scotland's coast and the Orkney Islands. With this new energy source England would be able to power the entire country indefinitely. Although this would require the shutting down of the shipping lanes, which is impossible. The article also goes on to discuss the possibility of wind power. Denmark is the country that is leading the world in this technology. Wind power provides 15% of the countries power. The Denmark government set up colonies that only have renewable energy sources. All of these colonies have been surviving for 3 years on this platform. The article goes on to chastise the United States about it's energy consumption and it's shortsightedness on the issue.
The article was exceptionally well written and provided a fresh and interesting point of view. It did not take any side but provided a level playing field for all of the countries. Some of the numbers provided by the article seemed a little far-fetched. It was really inspiring to read how countries with only a tenth of the land base that the United States has are able to provide their countries with a renewable source of energy, and still have space for the people. Especially for the wind powered countries.
This article was similar to one I have already read but this one provided a little bit more information. A Scottish company is planning on using the ocean current around its country to power 400 homes. This technology was studied in the 70's, but was deemed too costly. The article goes onto discuss where waves come from and how solar energy impacts this. The company plans on using turbines similar to those used in a dam. The cost of such an undertaking is 1.6 million dollars. Yet the cost passed to the consumer is only going to be 4 to 8.5 cents per kilowatt/hour. As with any new technology there are significant critics and skeptics. Europe is also interested in this type of technology. Tony Blair the Prime Minister of Britain is planning on using this technology to help boast the use of renewable energy by his country by 2010. Sweden is also jumping on the bandwagon of this energy source with a twist. They are planning on building a floating power vessel. Norway is thinking of converting some of their old oil platforms into this type of power supply.
This article was very similar to the other one in that it provided a lot of information. It added more countries than the other did, and even provided a more elementary aspect. This was a large help and a downfall. The fact that it was so easy to read made it very entertaining but all it did was reiterating what the other article already said, without all of the big words.
In January the rolling blackouts in Northern California cost the state millions of dollars in lost business sales. After this a panel of scientists released a report about how humans are impacting the planet in an adverse way. This panel predicts that the temperatures could rise by as much as ten degrees. The article then goes on to discuss the failure of the Kyoto agreement. The article then goes on to discuss how the fossil fuels will be use as the primary source of energy until the 2020's. Next it reads that natural gas will account for 26 percent of the energy by the 2020's. The article goes on to discuss how china has just pass and aggressive energy program that will cut the use of coal by 400 million pounds a year. Next it talks about how the people of the world need to use more energy efficient methods of transportation, and home needs.
This article seemed extremely biased. It did not really provide any scientific information only a person's opinion. There were no numbers other than what was expected. It neglected to delve into any issue other than the use of energy. A little information would have made this article more believable and less like a personal vendetta against the power companies and the government.
One of the future sources of energy is Space Energy. The manufacturing of giant solar collectors would accomplish this; they would orbit the Earth or be stationed on the moon. This idea is from the 70's but was almost abandoned due to the shear cost of the venture. Some of the technological gaps have been breached but we are still far from accomplishing this goal. The major problem is the cost, yet again.
The way this would work is that giant sheets of photovoltaic cells would be unfolded in low Earth orbit and hover in one space. This would provide 8 times more power than if photoelectric cells were on the ground. The electric energy would be converted into microwaves and beamed back to Earth through wireless power transmission. Then on the ground the collectors would convert it back into electric current. This project is still under funded and has little priority due to the skeptics and the cost of the venture. Yet there are those who feel that it will be the biggest energy provider.
This article was really good. A little odd, but very well written. It provided an all of the necessary information about the costs, the past, and the future of the project. It also provided the opinions of the naysayers and the people in favor of the project. It did not provide any type of bias whatsoever. It just reported the facts about the subject. It was very concise and was right to the point. It did not go over the top of my head
|
