Before you read any further, this isn’t going to be a green energy bashing article. It sounds like it at first, but trust me it’s not. Neither is it a coal, oil, or nuclear energy bashing article. It’s sort of a long read, so bare with me.
America and the world has evolved into an environmentally conscious society. A movement which widely began in the 1970’s by the Ash Council, who proposed to Richard Nixon who was then the President of the United States to create a new government entity called the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.). The Ash Council made this proposal to Nixon in the Ash Council Memo.
Which was presented to Nixon and his administration in April of 1970. This proposal not only advocated the creation of the E.P.A., but set out details for eliminating duties of other agencies which could be transferred over to the E.P.A. in order to streamline its effectiveness and centralize control over environmental concerns.
Since the E.P.A. implementation in 1970, many strides have been made to protect the environment. Some fine examples would be in the reduction of smog. In the case of cars, there were tight nitrogen oxide standards that were thought to be unachievable when proposed in the 1970s, but what resulted was the catalytic converter. It was cutting-edge at the time--many people in the industry said it couldn't be done. But now the cost of a converter is trivial in the cost of an automobile. Also the elimination of many Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in everyday products like hairspray and spray paint. Which according to many have an adverse affect on the ozone layer. The ozone layer made up of a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. These tightly packed molecules which make up a protective layer around the earth tend to reflect narrow bandwidth (high frequency) light waves back out into space. These light waves in the ultra violet range and beyond are dangerous to the human body, especially the skin. Over exposure to ultra violet radiation dramatically increases your chances of getting sun burned, and prolonged exposure can lead to cancer.
The E.P.A. when created was created with the good of the American people and the world in general in mind. Sadly this government institution which was founded with good intentions, have become an over burdensome bureaucracy . A bureaucracy that has found its way into nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Some of these intrusions are practical, and have a clear benefit to society like the two I mentioned above. Sure there are many more which I simply don't have time to mention. Regardless the E.P.A. pushes a green agenda, through the fear mongering of what use to be called Global Warming. Of course now it's no longer called Global Warming, because of the overwhanning evidence which leads more to a constant Climate Change throughout the world. Now it seems anytime a natural disaster occurs, it's because of Man Made Climate Change. Hurricanes, tornados, droughts, too much rain, above average temperatures, below normal temperatures, and too much snow, it all becomes conveniently blamed on man's actions. Under the umbrella of Climate Change.
Environmental Conservatism is something we all should take part in. We should keep in mind that Environmental Conservatism isn't environmental fanaticism. One very simple example of this fanaticism which has taken over the E.P.A. is in Vehicle Emissions Testing (V.E.T.). I agree 100% with enforcing environmental pollution regulations on motorized vehicles, and testing them on a annual basis to insure the exhaust pollutants are below a specified standard. That being said, an exhaust test should be all that is needed. If the car passes the sniff test, then it should pass the V.E.T. Unfortunately it’s not that simple when it comes to environmental regulations by the E.P.A. The way the laws are written and enforced, even if the exhaust passes and gets a clean bill of health, your car could still fail. If the intent of the V.E.T. was to ensure a clean exhaust, and the cars exhaust was tested and shown to be clean. Why then is that vehicle failed because of a check engine light, or various other small faults like a gas take which fails a pressure test, or a vacuum line which leaks.
Another insanity is engine swaps. It is a proven fact that a modern day efficient engines such as the 3 valve 4.6 liter modular engine which is found in the 2005 through current Ford Mustang, is a cleaner engine then the 5.0 liter engines found in the 1995 and older Mustangs. Yet, even with this truth. It is illegal to transplant a modern, cleaner, more efficient, all around more environmentally friendly 4.6 liter into a 1995 Mustang as opposed to keeping the 5.0 liter. ([Amended information] This is not the rule throughout the country, some localities allow for engine swaps as long as the donor car is the same year or newer, and have the same pollution control devices.)
My question is why. If the regulations imposed on the pollution created by motorized vehicles has solely to do with ensuring a clean exhaust, why is it illegal to swap out a less environmentally friendly engine for a newer modern one? The answer is simple. The E.P.A. has moved so far away from its original intent of Environmental Conservatism, that its regulations are less about clean air then they are about regulating. Regulation is a form of control, and the E.P.A. has become a bureaucracy which thrives on control. A bureaucracy which is largely ruled and influenced by environmental fanaticism, and lobbyists who push alternative energies as oppose to proven sources like coal and oil.
I am one of those "evil conservatives" who don't care about the environment, or so I have been told. Also I am a supporter of choice, freedom, and fair market. I love the idea behind alternative energies, but not for the same reasons which are behind the green movement. Oil, coal, and Natural Gas are a limited commodity. It’s that which will drive the transfer from fossil fuels to alternative energies. The push for alternative energies as a means to stave off Global Warming or Climate Change, is one that the public won’t buy. The reason is simple. Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas is cheap and abundant.
For every study which shows these commodities to be running low, there’s another study which shows there to be centuries worth of supply left. Regardless of what ones opinion is, we will eventually run out. Does that mean we shouldn’t be using what we have? Of course not.
There’s an easy to understand fact about business. Businesses want to remain in the business of making money. Because of that simple fact, the energy companies will protect their future and our future energy needs, all without the government getting involved in forcing a green agenda upon its people. As commodities such as oil start to become rare, as our limited resources become used up. The same companies will in full force begin to produce our needed energy from alternative sources.
I applaud alternative energy production. I wish there were more of it, because eventually the oil, coal, and natural gas will begin to run out. Still the government should let the free market work. The free market provides what the people ask for. People what sports cars, so automobile manufacturers make Mustangs, Corvettes, 350Zs, and countless other sport cars. People want faster computers, so the free market compels IBM, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, and other computer manufacturers to design faster and cheaper priced computers. All of these companies being compelled by the free market to provide what the people (there costumers) want. This free market compulsion is applied to every sector of business and manufacturing. So why does the federal government have to get involved in the free market affairs and push a green agenda with tax incentives? Because the people as a whole don’t want it yet. Oil, coal, and natural gas are still cheap and abundant. Until that fact changes, the price of energy from those sources will remain cheap.
Hmm, kind of makes a light bulb shine in your head doesn't it. Maybe that’s why the government is artificially inflating the cost of energy production through oil, coal, and natural gas. Maybe the government derived of free men is trying to limit choice and freedom of a free market, by regulation, and tax incentives. Electricity Use Per Capita Chart As of 2007 the average U.S. citizen used about 13.638 megawatts of energy a year. That’s enough energy to run twenty six 60 watt light bulbs, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If you want to check the energy consumption per capita of other countries click this link. To see the per capita usage of other countries click here.
A combined energy consumption of all energies combined from oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, etc in the U.S. is 4.228 trillion kwh or 4,228,000,000,000kwh equivalent. The total energy currently produced by wind power and other sources which are considered to be green sources in the U.S. is 30,876,000,000 kwh. Even though these green energy sources make up almost 7% of the total electricity used in the U.S., it only makes up .0073% of the total energy used in the U.S. We have to keep in mind that we don’t solely rely on electricity for our energy needs. Nearly every form of transportation in the U.S. uses a form of refined oil like gasoline or diesel. Energy production comparison based on commodity type chart
There are some valid arguments when it comes to using solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other considered green energy sources. Still to make it practical I see only four possible solutions.
Solution 1
Each household would have to produce their own energy through solar, wind, geothermal, or which ever combination of sources can be obtained on their own property. This energy could be used to power all the energy needs for the house and used to charge their electric vehicles if they choose to own one.
The most prevalent problem with this solution is that not everyone owns their own home. Where will they put the equipment needed for the production of their own energy if they live in an apartment?
Solution 2
Each county, city, or neighborhood would have to produce their own energy through the same means mentioned above.
The most prevalent problem with this would be regulation. Who will run these 1000s of energy production sites?
Solution 3
Create a world wide web of energy production, or a world power grid. We have to keep in mind the constant fluctuation of power consumption needs from day to night, winter to summer. If it is night time in one part of the world their solar energy production will be near zero, but on the other side of the planet it will be daytime. Likewise when it is winter in one hemisphere, it is summer in the other. Same with wind, one part of the world may not be windy while others will. One other huge advantage to a world energy grid is the lack of need to store energy. When one part of the world isn’t producing enough energy for their needs, the world grid would automatically transfer power to the areas that need it, from the areas that don’t. I know, I know, it sounds a lot like the famous phrase from Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need."
We have to be realistic. This approach, even though it sounds good on paper, can not work in the real world. There’s far too much controversy in the world, and I suspect there will always be. Unless Gene Rodenberry got his future world vision of a utopia correct. Me personally would love this to be the utopia we live in, but I am a realist. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Solution 4
This is the solution I would bet on. Use the energy we have in the form of oil, coal, natural gas and green sources to keep the American economy running strong. Over the next century or so, slowly transform America’s energy production from one dependent on nonrenewable sources to green energy sources. This is something which will take a century or longer to accomplish, and during the transitional phase we will have to exploit fossil fuel sources in order to keep the economy strong. Without a strong economy, we simply can’t afford to take on such a daunting task. This solution would have four major steps (requirements) to make it work.
National Energy Grid
We will have to design and build a national energy grid. A grid which if need be can transfer power from one part of the country which is currently producing a surplus of energy, to another part of the country which isn’t producing enough. Several factors would affect a regions ability to produce power. Weather (wind), cloud cover (sun), and temperature. A national energy grid would be the first step, as much of our infrastructure is already compatible. Also once the grid is completed it will still work with energy produced by coal, and nuclear. As the green energies start to come online throughout the nation, we can start to eliminate these nonrenewable sources.
Production
We will have to let free market and industry flourish, allowing it the means to drive the production costs of building solar panels, and wind turbines down. Mass production is the answer, not government tax incentives. Overtime though mass production the cost of these products will decrease.
Building Green Energy Production Sites
Each individual power company will have to build their own sites. Each of them built over an extended period of time, and put online and into the power grid as they are completed. Slowly over a century or more, the need to burn coal, natural gas, and other sources will diminish. This will also keep the current energy companies in business. The difference is after an extended period of time the energy being produced and profited from has transitioned from a limited commodity to one that isn’t.
Technology
New technology will constantly have to be invented, the most pressing one would be in automation of a national grid. We have to have a grid which is reliable and effortlessly transfers energy from one area to another. The second would be in the area of energy storage. A much better means of storage would have to be devised then the modern battery. You will have to have enough storage capacity to provide the nation with all of its energy needs for short period to the occasional long period of time. Again it’s not always sunny, or windy. Sometimes the cloud cover in the U.S. can reach nearly 100% which would virtually void any solar production at that time. Further this energy storage would have to be nontoxic, and or easily recycled.
In conclusion, although our energy needs are no where near as pressing of an issue as the national debt. If not tackled or at least steps taken to conquer our future energy needs, we will one day years into the future find ourselves in a situation where we are actually running out of coal, oil, and natural gas. Sure it’s a century or more in the future, but it will be so much easier of a transition over a long period of time then it will in the 11th hour.
Sources:
Wind Power Production In The U.S.
http://www.pawindenergynow.org/wind/facts.html
Solar Power Production In The U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States
Hydroelectric Power Production In The U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
Nuclear Power Production In The U.S.
http://www.solarpoweristhefuture.com/solar-power-statistics.shtml
Coal Power Production In The U.S.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
EPA
http://www.epa.gov/
America and the world has evolved into an environmentally conscious society. A movement which widely began in the 1970’s by the Ash Council, who proposed to Richard Nixon who was then the President of the United States to create a new government entity called the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.). The Ash Council made this proposal to Nixon in the Ash Council Memo.
Which was presented to Nixon and his administration in April of 1970. This proposal not only advocated the creation of the E.P.A., but set out details for eliminating duties of other agencies which could be transferred over to the E.P.A. in order to streamline its effectiveness and centralize control over environmental concerns.
Since the E.P.A. implementation in 1970, many strides have been made to protect the environment. Some fine examples would be in the reduction of smog. In the case of cars, there were tight nitrogen oxide standards that were thought to be unachievable when proposed in the 1970s, but what resulted was the catalytic converter. It was cutting-edge at the time--many people in the industry said it couldn't be done. But now the cost of a converter is trivial in the cost of an automobile. Also the elimination of many Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in everyday products like hairspray and spray paint. Which according to many have an adverse affect on the ozone layer. The ozone layer made up of a triatomic molecule, consisting of three oxygen atoms. These tightly packed molecules which make up a protective layer around the earth tend to reflect narrow bandwidth (high frequency) light waves back out into space. These light waves in the ultra violet range and beyond are dangerous to the human body, especially the skin. Over exposure to ultra violet radiation dramatically increases your chances of getting sun burned, and prolonged exposure can lead to cancer.
The E.P.A. when created was created with the good of the American people and the world in general in mind. Sadly this government institution which was founded with good intentions, have become an over burdensome bureaucracy . A bureaucracy that has found its way into nearly every aspect of our daily lives. Some of these intrusions are practical, and have a clear benefit to society like the two I mentioned above. Sure there are many more which I simply don't have time to mention. Regardless the E.P.A. pushes a green agenda, through the fear mongering of what use to be called Global Warming. Of course now it's no longer called Global Warming, because of the overwhanning evidence which leads more to a constant Climate Change throughout the world. Now it seems anytime a natural disaster occurs, it's because of Man Made Climate Change. Hurricanes, tornados, droughts, too much rain, above average temperatures, below normal temperatures, and too much snow, it all becomes conveniently blamed on man's actions. Under the umbrella of Climate Change.
Environmental Conservatism is something we all should take part in. We should keep in mind that Environmental Conservatism isn't environmental fanaticism. One very simple example of this fanaticism which has taken over the E.P.A. is in Vehicle Emissions Testing (V.E.T.). I agree 100% with enforcing environmental pollution regulations on motorized vehicles, and testing them on a annual basis to insure the exhaust pollutants are below a specified standard. That being said, an exhaust test should be all that is needed. If the car passes the sniff test, then it should pass the V.E.T. Unfortunately it’s not that simple when it comes to environmental regulations by the E.P.A. The way the laws are written and enforced, even if the exhaust passes and gets a clean bill of health, your car could still fail. If the intent of the V.E.T. was to ensure a clean exhaust, and the cars exhaust was tested and shown to be clean. Why then is that vehicle failed because of a check engine light, or various other small faults like a gas take which fails a pressure test, or a vacuum line which leaks.
Another insanity is engine swaps. It is a proven fact that a modern day efficient engines such as the 3 valve 4.6 liter modular engine which is found in the 2005 through current Ford Mustang, is a cleaner engine then the 5.0 liter engines found in the 1995 and older Mustangs. Yet, even with this truth. It is illegal to transplant a modern, cleaner, more efficient, all around more environmentally friendly 4.6 liter into a 1995 Mustang as opposed to keeping the 5.0 liter. ([Amended information] This is not the rule throughout the country, some localities allow for engine swaps as long as the donor car is the same year or newer, and have the same pollution control devices.)
My question is why. If the regulations imposed on the pollution created by motorized vehicles has solely to do with ensuring a clean exhaust, why is it illegal to swap out a less environmentally friendly engine for a newer modern one? The answer is simple. The E.P.A. has moved so far away from its original intent of Environmental Conservatism, that its regulations are less about clean air then they are about regulating. Regulation is a form of control, and the E.P.A. has become a bureaucracy which thrives on control. A bureaucracy which is largely ruled and influenced by environmental fanaticism, and lobbyists who push alternative energies as oppose to proven sources like coal and oil.
I am one of those "evil conservatives" who don't care about the environment, or so I have been told. Also I am a supporter of choice, freedom, and fair market. I love the idea behind alternative energies, but not for the same reasons which are behind the green movement. Oil, coal, and Natural Gas are a limited commodity. It’s that which will drive the transfer from fossil fuels to alternative energies. The push for alternative energies as a means to stave off Global Warming or Climate Change, is one that the public won’t buy. The reason is simple. Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas is cheap and abundant.
For every study which shows these commodities to be running low, there’s another study which shows there to be centuries worth of supply left. Regardless of what ones opinion is, we will eventually run out. Does that mean we shouldn’t be using what we have? Of course not.
There’s an easy to understand fact about business. Businesses want to remain in the business of making money. Because of that simple fact, the energy companies will protect their future and our future energy needs, all without the government getting involved in forcing a green agenda upon its people. As commodities such as oil start to become rare, as our limited resources become used up. The same companies will in full force begin to produce our needed energy from alternative sources.
I applaud alternative energy production. I wish there were more of it, because eventually the oil, coal, and natural gas will begin to run out. Still the government should let the free market work. The free market provides what the people ask for. People what sports cars, so automobile manufacturers make Mustangs, Corvettes, 350Zs, and countless other sport cars. People want faster computers, so the free market compels IBM, Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, and other computer manufacturers to design faster and cheaper priced computers. All of these companies being compelled by the free market to provide what the people (there costumers) want. This free market compulsion is applied to every sector of business and manufacturing. So why does the federal government have to get involved in the free market affairs and push a green agenda with tax incentives? Because the people as a whole don’t want it yet. Oil, coal, and natural gas are still cheap and abundant. Until that fact changes, the price of energy from those sources will remain cheap.
Hmm, kind of makes a light bulb shine in your head doesn't it. Maybe that’s why the government is artificially inflating the cost of energy production through oil, coal, and natural gas. Maybe the government derived of free men is trying to limit choice and freedom of a free market, by regulation, and tax incentives. Electricity Use Per Capita Chart As of 2007 the average U.S. citizen used about 13.638 megawatts of energy a year. That’s enough energy to run twenty six 60 watt light bulbs, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. If you want to check the energy consumption per capita of other countries click this link. To see the per capita usage of other countries click here.
A combined energy consumption of all energies combined from oil, coal, natural gas, wind, solar, etc in the U.S. is 4.228 trillion kwh or 4,228,000,000,000kwh equivalent. The total energy currently produced by wind power and other sources which are considered to be green sources in the U.S. is 30,876,000,000 kwh. Even though these green energy sources make up almost 7% of the total electricity used in the U.S., it only makes up .0073% of the total energy used in the U.S. We have to keep in mind that we don’t solely rely on electricity for our energy needs. Nearly every form of transportation in the U.S. uses a form of refined oil like gasoline or diesel. Energy production comparison based on commodity type chart
There are some valid arguments when it comes to using solar, wind, hydroelectric, and other considered green energy sources. Still to make it practical I see only four possible solutions.
Solution 1
Each household would have to produce their own energy through solar, wind, geothermal, or which ever combination of sources can be obtained on their own property. This energy could be used to power all the energy needs for the house and used to charge their electric vehicles if they choose to own one.
The most prevalent problem with this solution is that not everyone owns their own home. Where will they put the equipment needed for the production of their own energy if they live in an apartment?
Solution 2
Each county, city, or neighborhood would have to produce their own energy through the same means mentioned above.
The most prevalent problem with this would be regulation. Who will run these 1000s of energy production sites?
Solution 3
Create a world wide web of energy production, or a world power grid. We have to keep in mind the constant fluctuation of power consumption needs from day to night, winter to summer. If it is night time in one part of the world their solar energy production will be near zero, but on the other side of the planet it will be daytime. Likewise when it is winter in one hemisphere, it is summer in the other. Same with wind, one part of the world may not be windy while others will. One other huge advantage to a world energy grid is the lack of need to store energy. When one part of the world isn’t producing enough energy for their needs, the world grid would automatically transfer power to the areas that need it, from the areas that don’t. I know, I know, it sounds a lot like the famous phrase from Karl Marx. "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need."
We have to be realistic. This approach, even though it sounds good on paper, can not work in the real world. There’s far too much controversy in the world, and I suspect there will always be. Unless Gene Rodenberry got his future world vision of a utopia correct. Me personally would love this to be the utopia we live in, but I am a realist. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
Solution 4
This is the solution I would bet on. Use the energy we have in the form of oil, coal, natural gas and green sources to keep the American economy running strong. Over the next century or so, slowly transform America’s energy production from one dependent on nonrenewable sources to green energy sources. This is something which will take a century or longer to accomplish, and during the transitional phase we will have to exploit fossil fuel sources in order to keep the economy strong. Without a strong economy, we simply can’t afford to take on such a daunting task. This solution would have four major steps (requirements) to make it work.
National Energy Grid
We will have to design and build a national energy grid. A grid which if need be can transfer power from one part of the country which is currently producing a surplus of energy, to another part of the country which isn’t producing enough. Several factors would affect a regions ability to produce power. Weather (wind), cloud cover (sun), and temperature. A national energy grid would be the first step, as much of our infrastructure is already compatible. Also once the grid is completed it will still work with energy produced by coal, and nuclear. As the green energies start to come online throughout the nation, we can start to eliminate these nonrenewable sources.
Production
We will have to let free market and industry flourish, allowing it the means to drive the production costs of building solar panels, and wind turbines down. Mass production is the answer, not government tax incentives. Overtime though mass production the cost of these products will decrease.
Building Green Energy Production Sites
Each individual power company will have to build their own sites. Each of them built over an extended period of time, and put online and into the power grid as they are completed. Slowly over a century or more, the need to burn coal, natural gas, and other sources will diminish. This will also keep the current energy companies in business. The difference is after an extended period of time the energy being produced and profited from has transitioned from a limited commodity to one that isn’t.
Technology
New technology will constantly have to be invented, the most pressing one would be in automation of a national grid. We have to have a grid which is reliable and effortlessly transfers energy from one area to another. The second would be in the area of energy storage. A much better means of storage would have to be devised then the modern battery. You will have to have enough storage capacity to provide the nation with all of its energy needs for short period to the occasional long period of time. Again it’s not always sunny, or windy. Sometimes the cloud cover in the U.S. can reach nearly 100% which would virtually void any solar production at that time. Further this energy storage would have to be nontoxic, and or easily recycled.
In conclusion, although our energy needs are no where near as pressing of an issue as the national debt. If not tackled or at least steps taken to conquer our future energy needs, we will one day years into the future find ourselves in a situation where we are actually running out of coal, oil, and natural gas. Sure it’s a century or more in the future, but it will be so much easier of a transition over a long period of time then it will in the 11th hour.
Sources:
Wind Power Production In The U.S.
http://www.pawindenergynow.org/wind/facts.html
Solar Power Production In The U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_United_States
Hydroelectric Power Production In The U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
Nuclear Power Production In The U.S.
http://www.solarpoweristhefuture.com/solar-power-statistics.shtml
Coal Power Production In The U.S.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html
EPA
http://www.epa.gov/