Transition to a Sustainable Energy Use
Federal and state policies combined with government regulations, free markets, and energy policies will serve to drive energy sustainability. “The U.S. emits a lot of carbon dioxide — about 5.9 billion tons in 2013 alone, second only to China’s 9.5 billion tons.” (Bryce par 1). Arising are questions of political and social constraints that have proved to work against the rapid conversion to renewables, in conjunction with individual and ethical responsibilities of persons in the generation and use of finite natural resources in an era marked by an acute climatic disruption (Scherer 15). This paper discusses the issue of sustainability relevant to fundamental questions that governments, individuals, as well as business organizations need to take into account to address the issue of climate change and thereof sustainability.
The 2009 Stanford University ranks energy systems per their adverse effects on water supply, wildlife, pollution, global warming, and land use. “The very best options were the wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power—all of which are driven by the wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS)” (Jacobson and Delucchi 58). Ethanol, nuclear power, and coal were revealed as the worst options. “The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector” (Jacobson and Delucchi 59).
Jacobson and Delucchi highlight that, “A year ago, former vice president Al Gore threw down a gauntlet: to repower America with 100 percent carbon-free electricity within ten years.” (58). The repowering of America with 100% free carbon electricity gauntlet foreseen by former vice president Al Gore is not an insurmountable hurdle, but one nevertheless that can be achieved. “Our plan calls for millions of wind turbines, water machines, and solar installations. The numbers are large, but the scale is not an insurmountable hurdle; society has achieved massive transformations before” (Jacobson and Delucchi 58). Questions arising from such endeavors include the long-term feasibility of transforming the energies of the world and making it within the two-decade timeline. The answers are dependent on the choice of technologies, economic factors, political factors and availability of materials.
“Yet, from 1990 to 2012, the world’s energy from fossil fuels barely changed, down from 88 to 87 percent” (Ashutosh 54). In 2011, the generation of energy from renewable sources accounted not more than 10 percent of the total United States energy provision, mostly generated from old typical sources of renewable energy such as lumbering waste products and hydroelectric power plants. However, the past two decades have seen an increment in the subsiding of the development of renewables like solar and wind with new environmentally friendly fuels such as ethanol from corn which have only accounted for a mere 3.35% of the United States supply of energy. The slow energy transition pace is not a surprise as it was not only expected in the US but also around the world. In fact, “between 2001 to 2012, America’s coal consumption fell by 20 percent, and crude oil was down by 7 percent; and the consumption of natural gas rose by 14 percent” (Ashutosh 54-55). Despite the affordability, cleanliness, and abundance of natural gas, it will take at least one or two decades before the consumption of gas overwhelms that of coal, which continues to contribute at least 33% of electricity in the U.S. (Ashutosh 55).
According to Ashutosh, “Each major energy source that has dominated world supply has taken 50 to 60 years to rise to the top spot” (55). In 1840, coal’s consumption increased to 5%: In 1990, the consumption had increased to 50% of the global supply (Ashutosh 55). Changeovers to gas and oil that later followed saw a corresponding pattern attaining benchmark supply levels at 5% and then steadily rose. On the other hand, natural gas is taking a longer ascension pathway than regular cycles. Modern renewable sources of energy- geothermal, solar and wind – have only hit a 3.4% level; but “unless a disruptive technology or revolutionary policy speeds up change, they, too, may be destined for a long transition” (Ashutosh 55).
Ashutosh highlights that “a shift towards renewable energy is particularly challenging for several reasons” (56). Compared to how previous new energies took off, the transition to renewables is slow, and currently, there exist no financial or technical reason to believe that their rise will be faster, partly due to the soaring global energy demand, making it difficult for natural gas and other sources of renewable energy to keep up. Jacobson and Delucchi furthermore point out that “to ensure that our system remains clean, we consider only technologies that have near-zero emissions of greenhouse gasses and air pollutants over their entire life cycle, including construction, operation and decommissioning” (60).
Importantly, the mere three sequence energy transition (wood – coal – oil – natural gas) is not a dictation of future global energy developments. Real breakthroughs in cheap and safe power from nuclear plants or other genuinely affordable ways to of efficiently storing massive energy amounts produced by solar and the wind could foresee another remarkably rapid change. Additionally, “the similar pacing of three global transitions over two centuries is remarkable, mainly because the fuels required very different production techniques, distribution channels and machinery to convert them into usable power whether diesel engines for trains or furnaces for homes” (Ashutosh 56). Ashutosh further cautions that the large infrastructure and investment required worldwide for whatever new sources of energy to capture the global market of energy would take between “two to three generations: 50 to 75 years” (56).
A novel of environmental reasons exists as to why we should reduce the contingency on fossil fuels beyond the little quest of lowering pollutant gas emissions. “Burning fossil fuels emits sulfur and nitrogen oxides that lead to acid rain and photochemical smog, black carbon that adds to global warming, and heavy metals that harm human health. Reliance on fossil fuels also causes water pollution and ruins land” (Ashutosh 57). It is of environmental importance to implement switches to non-fossil energies, although the considered alternatives have their negative significant environmental impacts. Exemplifying the burning of even the most ecologically accepted ethanol sources has the possibility of causing air pollution with same mortality levels of burning gasoline. “How to get there as efficiently as possible is the real question” (57).
According to Ashutosh “Knowing that the transition will take many decades makes many policy options clear. However, energy and environmental policies in the U.S. and the world have been dismal” (57). Rather than the fads promoting limited desirous thinking, there is a need for long-run policies formulated on solid, practical expectations, combined with the ability to make non-hasty, non-poorly conceived commitments that would not be regrettable in the future. “One way to do this is to avoid picking energy winners” (Ashutosh 57). Governments should not be blinded by the prospects of new promising developments and research activities first to come through free markets, and hence apparently cease picking winners and award them monetary prizes only to abandon them for the next fashionable energy solution; exemplifying fuel-cell cars that ran on hydrogen and fast-breeder energy reactors.
According to Ashutosh, “spending on a variety of research activities is the best strategy” (57). In 1980, it was no-one’s guess that the next thirty years would see the foremost retrovert for the investments in innovations into energy that the federal government had be from not work on photovoltaic cells or nuclear power plants, but from the shale deposit drilling using hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Secondly, “governments also should not offer substantial subsidies or loan guarantees to companies that are jumping on the latest energy bandwagon, exemplified by Solyndra, a manufacturer of photovoltaic solar systems, which received $535 million from the U.S. government before promptly going bankrupt” (Ashutosh 57). Though the forward progression of parturient conversions of energy can be accelerated by subsidiaries, pragmatic appraisals should guide them, and more so require steady commitments that do not flirt from one exaggerated solution to another. At the same time, as much as possible, all forms of energy prices should be a real reflection of the real worth of both the short-term and long-run health and environmental effects of new energy. Such effects would “range from greenhouse gasses and black carbon from burning fossil fuels to soil erosion, nitrogen runoff and water depletion caused by growing corn for ethanol, to the cost of a high-voltage super-grid to link far-flung the wind and solar farms” (Ashutosh 57). Such reality checks can bring about the revelation of the long-term advantages of energy sources.
Importantly, the speeding up of the gradual transition to renewables would entail lowering the overall energy use. Ashutosh notes that “the faster demand rises, the harder it is to supply a significant fraction of it.” (57). Positive indicators have emerged from recent studies that there exist no insurmountable technical difficulties associated with lowering energy spending by up to a third, in both rapidly modernizing countries and the developed world. A reduction in demand would encourage the retirement to old fossil fuels. Additionally, politicians and people in affluent countries must be willing to acknowledge the fact that the past fifty years have seen an extraordinarily low price in an extraordinary term, though rising. “Rich countries should pay more to properly account for energy’s environmental and health consequences” (Ashutosh 57).
Powers concludes that “to be sustainable, a system must create as much or more energy than it consumes, so closing energy and resource loops becomes imperative” (par 7). Energy transitions on both national and global scales have proved inherently protracted affairs. Of no exception is the unfolding shift from old fossil energy sources to renewables. The transitions would thus demand that generations be packed with perseverance. “The necessity of a paradigm change in how we acquire and use energy becomes more evident by the day” (Johansen 9). The prospects of disruptive technologies or radical policies playing out to speed up the transitions are a welcome.
Works cited
Bryce, Robert. “The Real Energy Revolution Shrinking Carbon Dioxide Emissions? It’s Fracking.” The Seattle Times, 29 June 2014, old.seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2023944123_robertbryceopedenergy30xml.html. Accessed 3 Dec. 2016.
Jacobson, Mark Z. and Mark A. Delucchi. “A Plan for a Sustainable Future: How to Get All Energy from The Wind, Water, and Solar Power by 2030.” Scientific American November 2009, pp. 58-66. Document: eBook: The Web. http://www.nonukesyall.org/pdfs/sad1109Jaco5p.indd.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec. 2016.
Jogalekar, Ashutosh. “Vaclav Smil: ‘The Great Hope for a Quick and Sweeping Transition to Renewable Energy is Wishful Thinking.’” Scientific American, January 2014, pp. 52-57. Document: eBook: Web http://www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/scientificamerican0114-521.pdf. Accessed 3 Dec. 2016.
Johansen, Bruce E. The Global Warming Combat Manual: Solutions for a Sustainable World Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers, 2008. Print.
Powers, Jason. “The Problem is the Solution.” Clamor May/June 2005: 1. Web. http://archive.clamormagazine.org/issues/32/culture.php. Accessed 3 Dec. 2016.
Scherer, Lauri S. Climate Change. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. Print.
