The Future of Energy: proposal

     Eighty-five percent of commercial energy used in the United States is derived from fossil fuels. The worlds' consumption of energy is fourteen Tera-watt/hrs per day, an average of two and two tenths kilowatt/hrs per person. However, the average person in the U.S. consumes eleven kilowatt/hrs per day (Lackner and Sachs 219). As a country that consumes copious amounts of energy in comparison to the average, I feel our citizens should be more informed about current energy policies; including the direction of research being performed to make our country more energy and cost efficient. Research and development for material sciences is pertinent to the production of new energy storage devices. In the late seventies, and mere months ago new regulatory policies were applied to the nuclear industry. These revisions stunted the growth of nuclear power in the eighties, and without reformation will do so in the future.

      As the push or utilization of renewable energy sources gains momentum we need to familiarize ourselves with the pros and cons of different energy solutions. Whether its a different type of power plant to power our cities or an alternative fuel source for our cars. If we remain informed we can do our best to make sure our interests and the ecosystems are protected. Alternative fuels for automobiles include: hydrogen, fully electric, hybrid-drive systems, and bio-diesel. These fuels all have their drawbacks. Hydrogen is difficult to store, electric and hybrid-drive cars have battery longevity and power issues(Bullis, “Batteries” Pg. 2). Lastly, bio-diesel unfortunately cannot sustain high-demand production due to us not eating enough fried foods.

      The most viable alternative grid power sources are currently nuclear fission, solar harvesting, and wind harvesting. Nuclear power has been branded dangerous and risky especially since the incident at Three Mile Island. The meltdown at Three Mile Island prompted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission(NRC) to impose costly revisions and safety measures that the nuclear industry claims stunted their growth for two decades (Bullis, “Regulations” Pg. 2). Past solar power systems weren't very efficient and didn't work well on cloudy days or during indirect sunlight hours. Recently new materials and systems have been invented to make solar solutions far more efficient and cost effective. While wind energy harvesting systems may not be possible in a lot of areas due to weather or terrain, areas they are utilized in only have a little bit of noise and an obstructed view to complain about ( Pasqualetti, Pg. 382). Both wind and solar harvesting share a common drawback that bears attention. While a Nuclear plant can deliver energy constantly without interruption to the grid, solar and wind plants only make power while the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. We lack the battery technology to keep the grid stable between peak cycles. The Earth receives one hundred and seventy-thousand Terawatts from the sun, humans could run everything on a fraction of that energy(Lackner & Sachs, Pg 218-219). All that the material sciences need to refine new battery technologies is a little bit of money and time. Soon we could be harvesting the sun's awesome power.

      Ignorance to change in energy policy and divided attention in research and development will not help the world with its energy issues. We must gather information and choose a direction, for few resources are inexhaustible.

Sources Cited:

Bullis, Kevin. “A Recent Guide to Battery Advances.” TechnologyReview. 29 June. 2010. MIT. 13 September. 2011.<HTTP://www.technnologyreview.com/energy/25660/page1/>.

Bullis, Kevin. “New U.S. Regulations Proposed in Response to Fukoshima.” TechnologyReview. 15 July. 2011. MIT. 13 September. 2011. <http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/2700/>

Pasqualetti, Martin J.

Morality, Space, and the Power of Wind-Energy Landscapes

Geographical Review
Vol. 90, No. 3 (Jul., 2000), pp. 381-394

Lackner, Klaus S. and Jeffrey D. Sachs

“A Robust Strategy for Sustainable Energy”

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
Vol. 2005, No. 2 (2005), pp. 215-269