Public Understand of and Support for Wind Power in the United States

The article demonstrates the positive and negative characteristics of wind power in regards to what the public deems to be important. The article determines that the United States public knows relatively little about wind power, and because wind power is extremely cost efficient it is important for people to understand. The article supports public understanding and growth in the use of wind power and believes that it is the best alternative energy form with the most potential. The article recognizes the disadvantages of wind power especially to those people residing near the proposed wind farms, as they are unsightly and noisy.

References:

Klick, H., & Smith, E. (2010). Public understanding of and support for wind power in the United States. Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 35(7), 1585-1591. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.028

Response to “Where I lived, and What I lived for,” by Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau, who wrote "Where I Lived, and What I Lived For," lived his life in the woods, rejected modern technologies and emphasized a simple way of life. Like a Neanderthal, Thoreau refused to evolve with the advancements of modern life. Thoreau claims, “I could easily do without the post-office…there are very few important communications made through it…And I am sure that I never read any memorable news in a newspaper.” I found his claims to reject postmodern communications ironic, without such simple technologies we might not even know who he was. Thoreau refers to our life as a German Confederacy—not functioning as a whole—and “the nation itself, with all its so-called internal improvements, which by the way are all external and superficial, is just such an unwieldy and overgrown establishment, cluttered with furniture and tripped up by its own traps, ruined by luxury and heedless expense…and the only cure for it…is in a rigid economy, a stern and more than Spartan simplicity of life and elevation of purpose.” (Thoreau, 2007) Thoreau does make a valid point that our world as a whole has not made enough effort to collaborate and produce a solution for our global energy crisis, though without technological and energy advances, growth and understanding of solutions can never be obtained. Without advancements in technologies, people, like Thoreau, will be subjected to a pathetic simple life of a troglodyte, where our minds will deteriorate without stimulation and the once most intelligent life form on the planet will potentially become extinct. By refusing to adapt, grow, learn, make discoveries, find solutions, and live to our highest potential, the purpose of life becomes questionable. Thoreau states that, “instead of eating three meals a day, it may be necessary to eat one”, so as to conserve energy.But why even eat one if you have nothing to live for? Without energy and technology, we cannot be competent, we cannot save lives, we cannot educate, we cannot make a difference.

References:

Cohen, S. (2007). 50 essays: A portable anthology. Pp. 424 - 430. Bedford/St. Martin's:

Boston, MA.

The strategic environmental impact assessment of electric wind energy plants

This article is a case study of electric wind energy plants and the impact they have on the environment. The case study takes place in Serbia, where they research renewable energy sources and assess the effectiveness of wind energy plants. Wind energy is a renewable energy source worth studying because of its economical and ecological benefits to society. Wind energy is cheap to produce and has little impact on the atmosphere, though there are negative aspects to wind power plants also. They include a potential impact on area characteristics, potential damage to flora and fauna populations, and an increase in noise levels. The project sets goals to minimize negative environmental impacts from the wind power plant in Serbia, and though there is an increasing need to utilize renewable energy sources and a healthier environment, wind power does risk endangering certain species, mainly birds.

References:

Josimović, B., & Pucar, M. (2010). The strategic environmental impact assessment of electric wind energy plants: Case study ‘Bavanište’ (Serbia). Renewable Energy: An International Journal, 35(7), 1509-1519. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2009.12.005

Hydro Energy

Having researched nuclear energy and geothermal energy, I have seen benefits and disadvantages for both forms of providing energy and have decided to continue looking at other forms of energy and which is the most beneficial for energy consumption and the least damaging to our global environment and our impact on the atmosphere. This has brought me to the study of hydro energy, or energy derived from water. Water contains kinetic energy, which is energy that is used during the process of movement, and potential energy, which is energy stored in the water that will be used when it is transferred to kinetic energy during the process of movement. Water power plants generate hydro energy when water flows or falls, they conduct this energy through turbines and generators. Dams are build to reserve water energy, the water in the reservoir falls through the dam into a turbine, in the turbine water in converted into chemical energy. The chemical energy is used in generators to provide electricity to communities and water is recycled back into the natural environment. The process of hydroelectricity emits small amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Many countries throughout the world use hydro energy as an energy source for society. In the USA 13% of energy is generated from hydro energy, and in Norway 99% of their energy is derived from hydro energy. While all this information on hydro energy seems to be a perfect solution for solving energy problems there are also disadvantages to using water to generate energy. The disadvantages of hydro energy include: energy plants take up a large amount of space and may cause a disruption to the natural environment and animal populations, large hydro energy plants may remove natural flowing rivers, and prevent people from using them for recreational purposes such as fishing, kayaking, and canoeing, and the hydroelectric plants may decrease the sea and aquatic life in the area.

References:

Water energy faq. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.lenntech.com/water-energy-faq.html

Response to a classmates blog

Butch’s energy blog on geothermal energy, which is, “heat from the earth, and when the conditions are right…those areas are close to the surface, along with underground water reservoirs that are heated. The whole process works almost like a steam engine. The pumped water is conducted to a control house, where it is distributed to schools, houses, hospitals, small electrical turbines and…heats the sidewalks that we use to conduct everyday business. The problem with this clean and hardly used energy source is that the only ideal spots on which to drill are on fault lines. Then you run the risk of manufacturing your own earthquake.” (Criswell, 2010).I took interest to this blog because I found geothermal energy to be very interesting in that it seems like it would be a safe form of conducting energy, as it is a renewable, non toxic energy source, however, it could potentially be extremely destructive to our society with the induced seismic activity. Like nuclear energy, geo-thermal energy could be extremely beneficial and also potentially dangerous, but in a completely different way. Butch describes an incident in Basel, Switzerland in January of 2007, where they had injected water into the ground to widen the fractured rock to form a reservoir and they ended up manufacturing a 3.4 earthquake. Since that earthquake was manufactured, Basel has had at least 100 seismic shocks around the 3.0 magnitude. Basel was to become the first to generate commercial power using geothermal energy. Like the geothermal incident that occurred, several destructive nuclear accidents have occurred in a variety of nuclear power plants around the world. Usually these accidents result in improper care of uranium rods which expose workers and civilians to dangerous toxic amounts of radiation.

References:

Major nuclear power plant accidents. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.atomicarchive.com/Reports/Japan/Accidents.html

Criswell, B. (2010, March 25). Gryphon's hoard. Retrieved from http://gryphonshoard.blogspot.com

Pro's and Con's of Nuclear Energy

Advantages of Nuclear Energy
· Nuclear energy will last longer than coal and oil, when coal and gas becomes scares nuclear energy will still be able to produce power for humanity, though not indefinitely.
· Nuclear power plants use uranium, which produces an enormously more energy than coal or oil.
· Nuclear energy does not produce much carbon dioxide and omit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, like those of burning fossil fuels from coal and oil, preventing global warming.
· The technology of producing energy is readily available and reliable.
· Nuclear energy is not expensive to make.
· Nuclear energy produces small amounts of waste, though the waste is extremely dangerous.
Disadvantages of Nuclear Energy
· Nuclear energy can be used to create weapons which produce radiation that makes people very ill. People fear that the advancement of nuclear energy will also advance the use of nuclear weapons.
· If the nuclear power plant has a “meltdown,” which is the loss of controlling the fission reaction of the atoms, it will lead to a nuclear explosion and the emission of large amounts of radiation.
· The life of a nuclear power plant may only last for approximately 60 years.
· Nuclear reactors produce nuclear waste, which contains heavy amounts of radiation. The touch of the nuclear waste is deadly and is stored in cooling pods at the nuclear power plant, where it is active for thousands of years.
· Nuclear energy uses uranium, which is not a renewable source of energy.

References:

Nuclear energy. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/3471/nuclear_energy_body.html

Time for change. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-energy

BP Energy Calculator

BP energy calculator has estimated my household energy consumption to be 49,182 kWh per year. Considering that one U.S. gallon of gasoline contains 35 kWh of energy, the energy consumption can be calculated into approximately 1,405 US gallons of gasoline energy per year. For a 3 person household that doesn’t seem to be incredibly high. Our carbon footprint is approximately 30.8 tonnes; this is higher than the U.S. average. I do not know, but I think this would be a low average compared to other Alaskan households. It seems that we are negatively affecting our environment because we choose to live in Alaska where energy is used more frequently to heat our homes, and getting from one place to another is more difficult and arduous task. Cities are not close by and visiting families in cities and villages accounts for a negative impact on energy consumption and carbon emissions. My home is not very close to central Anchorage, visiting family in Seward, and flying nationally and internationally uses a large amount of energy.

Links: http://www.bp.com/