Since the
discovery of the negative impacts of fossil fuels, finding a viable alternative
has been one of the most researched and hottest debated fields of study. We
know that these fossil fuels are bad for our environment and us. And while new
technologies and strategies have been developed to mitigate these detrimental
impacts, there is still a question about how to best tackle this problem. Many
scientists, myself included, believe that the answer is not straightforward;
rather, it is a combination of most, if not all, of the strategies and
technologies that have been developed over the years. It is this balancing act
that will be needed to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
Many
believe, incorrectly, that it is going to be one or two big alternative energy
sources that completely replace fossil fuels. At this time, this is not
realistic—mostly due to a lack of technology. We cannot expect to be completely
solar or completely wind any time soon; the space needed to build the
infrastructure required to produce the amount of energy needed to meet the
United States energy consumption rates is not available. Instead, the way to
reduce and eventually eliminate our dependence of fossil fuels will have to
come through from a more diverse set of resources and more involved process.
The first
step in this process should start with surveys of regions throughout the
country to assess which energy sources are developed there and how much. For
example, solar plants should be developed in areas of high sunlight, such as
the desert, and wind plants should be developed in areas of high winds, such as
valleys. We must maximize the amount of energy that an alternative energy
source can harvest by placing them in the correct areas.
By using a
combination of these alternative energy sources, we are evenly distributing the
burden that they place on the environment and humans. This is to say that
instead of making a solar farm the size of Rhode Island—to power some of the United
States, we should evenly distribute these technologies by using land spatial
planning techniques.
In areas of
high wave activity we must install tidal energy technology to harvest the
potential energy from waves. We must also install turbines that can harvest the
energy from the tide moving in and out from the coast. However, this technology
should not be installed in areas where it will disrupt tourism or biodiversity
hotspots.
In areas of
high wind we must install wind turbines to capture as much of this energy as we
can. We must also be careful not to install them too close to residential
neighborhoods as many people do not appreciate the noise nor the look.
In areas of
high sunlight we must install solar farms. However, we must be careful not to
create these farms in biodiversity hotspots, so as not to disrupt the local environment.
In areas of empty land we must
plant biofuels—such as algae—to create other forms of energy with which to run
machinery. However, we should ensure that land used for growing food is not
used to grow biofuels.
In order to avoid the downsides
associated with the aforementioned technologies, they must not be overemployed.
It is important to use a balance of each alternative energy source. By using them
in combination, we begin to see a viable solution emerge. While these technologies,
individually, may not be as efficient as we would hope, using them in
combination offsets the costs and creates a more efficient infrastructure for
alternative energy to be produced and used.
Going
forward, we must acknowledge that putting a focus of developing these
alternative energy sources will create a larger “green” market and a larger
demand for these products. I am hesitant to say that the government must
subsidize the market, as once a market is subsidized it is nearly impossible to
take that subsidy away. However, should growth in this market not increase
naturally, then perhaps this is a necessary evil.
I believe
that we are at a fork in the road. We can either choose to willingly change now
and be ahead of the curve, or be forced to change later and face greater
ramifications. It is here where the old adage is appropriate, “do the hard things
first.” It is just like coming home from grade school and wanting to watch TV
before doing homework, yet, your parents will not let you; telling you to “do
the hard things first.” During the process you are upset and just want to watch
TV. However, once the task is completed, you feel at peace and you enjoy
watching TV without worry. This is the same situation we are in. Scientists are
acting as our parents; and it is up to us, the children, to decide whether or
not we want to listen to them. While we know they are right, we continue to
want to defy them and prove that our way is better.
“The definition of insanity is
doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results,” said
Albert Einstein.[i] It’s our
move.
No comments:
Post a Comment