Election Day: Looking Forward and Back

Today is the end to the a highly historic election, which stands out as the most expensive election ever, with Barack Obama raising over $450 million and John McCain raising an additional $230 million. Additionally, Obama could become America's first African-American President, and McCain could become the nation's oldest President elected to a first term. Finally, this election has summoned unprecedented voter turnout, with a record twenty-four million people casting their ballots early. The turnout today is expected to be just as massive, even in areas where neither candidate visited. In fact, the Obama campaign boosted voter registration in states like Alabama and Nebraska, where McCain could gain double-digit victories. According to Ferrel Guillory, a political expert, specifically in Southern politics, this registration boost will likely become significant later on, and D'Linell Finley, a political scientist, predicted that the registration would help Democrats win political offices, like a seat on a state Supreme Court. Whatever the election results are, though, this election may reshape political campaigns for years, and perhaps decades to come.

As for the election results, they will likely depend on eighteen battleground states, which supply one hundred and ninety-four electoral votes. According to ABC News, four of those states - Georgia, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia - are leaning Republican, nine states - Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin - are leaning Democratic, and the remaining five states - Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, and Missouri - are toss-ups. In particular, Indiana and North Carolina are behaving quite unusually, as the two states have not voted for a Democratic President since 1964 and 1976, respectively. Some news organizations slightly contradict these predictions, though. As an illustration, the CNN Electoral Map Calculator, which you can use to make predictions of the Presidential Race and compare them to previous races, as of this post, shows that Montana and North Dakota are currently toss-ups, not leaning Republican. Also, the interactive map shows that Iowa appears to be safely Democratic, while Arizona appears to be leaning Republican. Of course, any predictions of the election results are premature, as nobody will see the full spectrum of results until late at night, as according to CNN's diagram of poll closings, Alaska closes its polls at around 1:00 AM, but many of the battleground states will close their polls by 8:00 PM, and all of the battleground states will close their polls by 10:00 PM. Already, though, Obama scored a small victory, as the small village of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, which holds the honor of the first place to release its election results, voted for Obama by 15 to 6. These numbers are small, but all of the registered voters in the town voted, and the village has not voted for a Democratic President since 1968, when the village voted for Hubert Humphrey over Richard Nixon. As you know, Humphrey never won the Presidency, so the village will not foreshadow the outcome of this Presidential race. However, those early results, combined with the historic nature of this election, may signal a change in American politics - a change to the twenty-first century.

Nuclear Power: Effective, but Renewable?

As I stated in an earlier post, solar energy drives many of the renewable energy sources on the Earth, many of which are incredibly powerful. All that solar power is generated through nuclear fusion, a type of nuclear reaction that occurs in the Sun's core. By that reasoning, nuclear power could provide untold amounts of energy, and the world has followed that reasoning, with one hundred and four nuclear power plants in the United States alone. In fact, scientists are still researching new nuclear technology, with the development of small-scale nuclear reactors, which can be constructed in half the construction time of a regular nuclear reactor, and General Fusion has developed Magnetized Target Fusion, a process that may resolve one of the many obstacles facing nuclear fusion. If the technology were advanced enough, nuclear power could become a stable energy source in the future.

However, nuclear power is disadvantageous for many reasons, among them recently projected costs of five to twelve billion dollars per power plant, double to quadruple that of earlier estimates. Additionally, if you look at my post "The Earth, Energy, and Politics," you will find that ninety-five percent of nuclear fuel can be recycled. However, as the nuclear fuel is repeatedly recycled, the amount of usable nuclear fuel gradually decreases, eventually reaching levels insufficient to satisfy the energy demands of the world. Most importantly, nuclear power is detrimental to the environment. A study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2003 found that one thousand five hundred new nuclear reactors would be needed by the middle of the century to even begin reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Not only that, but nuclear power plants generate several wastes. As an illustration, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona produces over fifty-five tons of nitrogen oxide. Combined with the other drawbacks, this pollution makes nuclear power seem similar to fossil fuels, despite the immense differences in potential energy. However, the world should worry about the much greater, environmental danger of fossil fuels instead of the dangers of nuclear power, since humanity has only one Earth, and the planet should be used wisely.

Hydrogen: The Fuel of the Future?

Because of the current fuel-based technology of cars, renewable fuels, like biofuels, are quite popular. As I showed in one of my earlier posts, though, biofuels still emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, upon combustion. In contrast, hydrogen promises to emit no carbon dioxide emissions, becoming the cleanest fuel available. For those with a basic understanding of chemistry, hydrogen, upon combustion, produces, apart from energy, only water. Water is key to life on Earth, and, if the hydrogen is pure, the water will share that purity, which may allow people to drink that water. However, that approach may be impractical or expensive, and scientists probably did not use that idea to promote hydrogen use. On the contrary, the lack of harmful emissions likely contributed heavily to the concept of hydrogen use, and, with time, the fuel may become useful.

Unfortunately, hydrogen power is extremely problematic, as forty-eight percent of all hydrogen production is met with natural gas through Steam Methane Reforming, or SMR, which, unsurprisingly, also produces carbon dioxide. This method, despite its drawbacks, may serve as an effective transition to more environmentally friendly methods of hydrogen production. In fact, researchers have developed a process where solar energy is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which can be combusted later. However, if the costs of this use of solar energy are too high, then the photovoltaic cells I discussed in an earlier post may prove more effective. Additionally, effective hydrogen combustion requires a fuel cell, which is commonly associated with a fuel cell vehicle. Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen stored in high-pressure tanks, but can also use fuels such as natural gas and gasoline via a "reformer," which converts those fuels into hydrogen. This property may also aid in transitioning to renewable energy, and the high-pressure tanks could be used in other cars for natural gas combustion to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Ultimately, the fuel cell has remarkably similar properties to the battery of a Plug-in Hybrid, which I have elaborated on in an earlier post. Both technologies can potentially aid in eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, and both grant the world some flexibility in adapting to renewable energy. Each technology serves as a step in a long, winding staircase, but one technology may prove less expensive, which may halt progress on the other technology. However, scientists should research both technologies, despite the higher price in that approach, so if one technology becomes unexpectedly less effective, then the world will not fall behind in technological development, allowing humanity to preserve the Earth without risk, and the Earth is far too precious to risk to chance.

A Self-Analysis of Thought

When reading my blog posts, people may assume that I am already an expert on renewable energy, given my presentation of obscure facts on the subject. On the contrary, I recently discovered those facts, which significantly altered my views and thoughts on renewable energy. Before my discoveries, I considered renewable energy to be, currently, extremely viable and only halted by political gridlock. Now, however, I am stunned by the multitude of environmental obstacles, which I discussed in earlier blog posts, that hinder the development of renewable energy technologies. Because of my recent discoveries, I now realize the enormous difficulties in advancing renewable energy.

To fully understand myself, I needed to compare my evolution in thought on renewable energy to recent announcements and news on the topic. For instance, many organizations have announced plans in relation to renewable energy. Gemma Renewable Power LLC can pursue a $50 million wind farm contract, BlueFire Ethanol will be presenting its patented process for converting cellulosic wastes to ethanol, and HelioVolt opened its first factory in Austin, Texas for producing thin-film solar material. Their work on renewable energy reminded me of my earlier desire to have companies pursue renewable energy relentlessly, and these companies were not the only reminders. In fact, the country of Thailand is considering using ethanol and natural gas instead of imported oil, and Hawaii plans to have seventy percent of its energy consumption met with renewable energy by 2030. Granted, these plans may be changed or scrapped completely, but they both show the intense desire many people, including myself, possess for renewable energy.

I would like to see companies expand renewable energy technologies, but, regrettably, I have seen many drawbacks to transitioning to current renewable energy technology. I have elaborated on these drawbacks in previous blog posts, but I have also seen one additional setback - the current economic crisis. As many of you know, using renewable energy reduces the usage of fossil fuels, which give off greenhouse gases that heat the atmosphere. A popular mechanism of reducing these gases is called cap-and-trade, where the government would, basically, create a market for carbon dioxide emissions. The creation of such a system, however, could further stress the economy. Because of both the economic crisis and the environmental side effects current renewable energy technologies have, I slowly realized the difficulties in implementing renewable energy. My conclusion was reinforced by the fact that one company has cut funding for a solar rooftop project in half.

Given my discoveries, I thought that the world could, currently, do little about energy until the economic crisis passed, but I quickly found that my assumption was untrue. Recently, Oregon has passed greenhouse gas reporting rules, which require that, in 2010, all major greenhouse gas producers must report their emission totals. This rule seemed to be useless, but, upon further examination, I saw that data on greenhouse gas emissions may help scientists to gather more data on global warming, which could encourage more legislation on global warming. I also noticed that even filmmakers were taking action by creating "Eco-Horror" films that discuss global warming. Finally, I found that twenty-one companies will seek permission for the construction of thirty-four nuclear power plants. Upon seeing and contemplating this material, I concluded that those actions signified that the industry was attempting to lay additional groundwork for future expansion of renewable energy, which may prove important for the future.

My thoughts and conclusions, no matter how reinforced they may be, are not concrete or absolute. Later on, economic conditions may change, or scientists may invent groundbreaking new technologies that resolve some drawbacks to renewable energy. Those developments probably would alter my present conclusions on renewable energy, and would likely change political and scientific views on the topic. Your views, however, are also extremely important. By educating yourself on renewable energy, you will develop a greater understanding of the subject, allowing you to make an informed decision on Election Day and reshape America. Most importantly, you may find that your thoughts on renewable energy evolved, just as my thoughts on that subject evolved.

Solar Energy: The Ultimate Power Source?

The Sun is responsible not only for life on Earth, but also for the renewable energy sources humanity now seeks to harvest. For example, plants use sunlight to grow, and humans can convert plants to biofuels. In similar connections, all forms of renewable energy are directly influenced by the Sun, meaning that the Sun transfers all the enormous amounts of energy seen in renewable energy sources like geothermal and wind power. Given the already enormous power of those sources, the Sun likely transfers much more power to the Earth, and this conclusion has likely led to the development and expansion of solar energy. For those familiar with my post on Plug-in Hybrids, though, solar energy is generally harvested through photovoltaic cells. Photovoltaic cells, though, are usually composed of silicon, but the silicon must be 99.9999% pure. The extreme purity required probably contributed to a main challenge solar energy faces - its cost. In addition to the price of solar energy, however, the speed of integrating solar technology, the environmental limits to solar energy, and the impact solar energy use will have on the industry are also drawbacks to the power source. As an illustration, for any location on the Earth, solar energy is only available for twelve hours per day. Because of this limited window for energy collection, businesses will need to adapt to the lack of power during the night. Also, if solar power is adapted too slowly, businesses may choose to burn fossil fuels or use other sources of energy. Additionally, not all solar energy can be realistically harvested, since stealing too much power from the environment could have an impact on plants and alter the Earth's climate.

To avoid this harmful effect, humanity will need to find more efficient methods of collecting solar energy, but scientists may have already invented new technology that can achieve this goal. The company SiOnyx has developed "Black Silicon," which is silicon that has been exposed incredibly briefly to a laser pulse in the presence of foreign material. The resulting silicon can absorb much more of the energy in sunlight than regular silicon. Chemists at the Ohio State University have also developed a hybrid material, composed of electrically conductive plastic and metals, that can absorb the entire spectrum of visible light, which could also allow solar panels to become much more efficient. Currently, humanity can implement solar technology, but with these advancements, society may want to hold back on that conversion, but that approach may indirectly damage the Earth.

Can Wind Be Used Safely?

Wind is extremely energetic, since the force of nature is created by air traveling at significant velocities. As an illustration, all the wind in the United States can generate one and a half times the United States' electricity consumption. This potential ignited a huge desire for the world to use wind power, but wind power may be limited by the supply of turbines that are needed to harness the wind's kinetic energy. In fact, according to General Electric, there is a $12 billion backlog on wind turbines. With this enormous demand, though, the world may become too dependent on wind power, and winds can be highly variable, becoming more or less energetic. Less energetic winds, in particular, are harmful for a world dependent on wind power, as wind turbines then harvest less power, which may devastate cities that rely on the power source. Also, wind turbines may be unstable if they malfunction, as evidenced by the attached video on the bottom.

Wind turbines, even if they operate without errors or decreases in energy production, may impact the environment, not through greenhouse gases, but through the deaths of birds and bats. At the Altamont Pass Wind Area, the oldest commercial wind farm in America, an estimated ten thousand birds are killed every year, and, annually, one hundred thousand birds are believed to be killed by wind turbines nationwide. Most of these deaths, though, occur in three Californian wind farms, in which the turbines were constructed in the early 1980's, implying that new technology may not be as dangerous to birds. Also, the number of birds killed at wind farms is relatively small compared to the millions of birds killed in collisions with human creations, like cars and windows. Bats, however, are not normally killed at any human structures, but at the Mountaineer Wind Energy Center, hundreds of bats died in one night. Scientists cannot provide data on the number of bats killed at wind farms every year, but some estimates report that, at wind farms, three to five bats are killed for every bird that is killed. Scientists are still researching a solution to this problem, but the Bats and Wind Energy Cooperative has begun testing the effect of stopping wind turbines during periods of low wind velocities on bat deaths, in effect taking advantage of a drawback of wind power to negate a much larger drawback. This strategy may help make wind power a staple renewable energy source in the future, but further development should be stalled until scientists eliminate the effects wind turbines have on bat and bird populations.

P.S.: Here is the video I mentioned earlier.

Linking to Renewable Energy

I hope that you have learned much from my blog on renewable energy, but I cannot cover the entire spectrum of information on this subject. If you are still unsatisfied with my information on renewable energy, you can search for recent news on renewable energy, or you can browse through this list of recommended links, along with arguments as to why you should visit these links.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency

This site contains an abundance of information on the environment, but you can also find various sections of the site related to energy, specifically, the Green Vehicle Guide, which you can use to select environmentally friendly vehicles, and the Climate Change section, which contains a extensive summary of global warming, along with many other links for exploration.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory

This site deals with several aspects of renewable energy, including current news on the topic, small summaries of renewable energy sources, and technologies that utilize renewable energy. Much of the information I have seen is brief and lacks detail, but some links leading to more detailed assessments often accompany this information, making this site an excellent hub for gathering information.

The U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

This site is extensively detailed, offering enormous sums of information on renewable energy, with each main hub of information on each type of renewable energy branching into several subunits that detail various aspects of the energy type, but these branches are sometimes short. Still, the vast array of diverse coverage on renewable energy warrants a visit to this site.

The Energy Information Administration

This site does not contain many overviews on renewable energy, so you should not look at this site if you want that type of information. That said, this site is a very good site for accessing data on topics on or related to energy. You can find energy forecasts, greenhouse gas data, power plant emission levels, Congressional reports, and data on energy production on the site, making the site wonderful for those who like to see raw figures and draw their own opinions on the current energy situation.

The California Cars Initiative

If you have thoroughly read my blog, you have heard of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. This site has a simple goal - to make automobile manufacturers to produce these vehicles. I have mentioned some facts on these vehicles, but this site provides much more detail on these vehicles. There are also news articles and videos on the site, allowing you to explore this concept without expending much effort.

Global Climate Change- NASA's Eyes on the Earth

This site is focused on the environmental impact of global warming, and the site delivers information on global warming in an easily absorbed fashion. For those who do not want to read extensive articles, the top bar offers a brief summary of the effects of global warming, ranging from sea level rise to the size of the ozone hole and carbon dioxide levels. The site also has several interactives, allowing you to become engaged in this issue.

Why Limit Water to Drinking?

Without water, life would never be able to exist on Earth. Water does not have to be limited to that role, though. Dams installed in rivers can be used to generate hydropower, which is electricity generated from the kinetic energy of water. Hydropower generates twenty percent of the world's electricity, and is responsible for ninety-seven percent of electricity generated from renewable energy sources. Hydropower is so relatively prevalent, Norway uses hydropower to generate ninety-nine percent of its electricity. Hydropower, however, because of its dependence on dams, can only be harvested in rivers, and this form of electric generation fails to harvest the heat inherent in some water.

A relatively new method of harvesting water-based energy, called Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, or OTEC, promises to harvest this energy. In fact, the energy in the world's oceans is so bountiful that only one-tenth of a percent of this energy could provide twenty times the energy consumed by the United States. The only requirement for an OTEC system is a difference of 20 degrees Celsius between the temperature of the surface water and the temperature of the water deep below the surface. Despite the promise of OTEC, the world has not yet financed a permanent OTEC plant. Still, OTEC is inspiring for some futurists, having proposed using OTEC to power conceptual underwater hotels and floating cities. Unlike hydropower, OTEC is not yet being used, but may hold much more potential. In fact, hydropower and OTEC could let humanity expand if the technology is advanced, and, combined with other renewable energy sources, will provide untold amounts of power for the world and eliminate the dependence of fossil fuels.

P.S.: Here is a video on OTEC from Youtube.

The Implications of Ignorance

High oil and gas prices have undoubtedly accelerated the quest for renewable energy. These prices may carry economic consequences if renewable energy is left relatively undeveloped, but more dangerous, possibly permanent, effects may accompany those consequences. Currently, as I noted in "The Earth, Energy, and Politics," most energy demand is satisfied by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are limited, as well as virtually non-renewable, allowing the fuel to be depleted. A depletion of fossil fuels would have several harmful effects, such as the elimination of conveniences such as the computer and television. These two technologies are completely integrated into the foundation of society, and suddenly removing those technologies would shatter the social network.

The shattering of society, however, is pale in comparison to the potentially massive effects of global warming, resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels. Because of the resulting temperature increase, the polar ice caps, which support many lifeforms, will likely melt. The new lack of ice, supposedly, would allow the Earth to absorb more sunlight, further increasing the Earth's temperature. In addition to the harm this melting would inflict on species depending on polar regions, global warming can also impact humanity as well, but those effects are not as clear. As an illustration, global warming could increase the risk of catching various diseases. However, even with global warming, puzzlingly, the number of heat-related deaths has declined. Similarly, global warming can dehydrate some crops, but can also extend the growing season for some regions. Since biofuels, which I elaborated on earlier, are plant-based, global warming would impact the resource. In fact, other renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power, could also be impacted by changes in cloud cover and wind speed, respectively.

These theories may be true or false, but very few of these theories provide any scientific data, aside from carbon dioxide and temperature measurements. Without any data, the effects of global warming remain unforeseen, but these effects will certainly be enormous. Combined with the consequences of the depletion of fossil fuels, not pursuing renewable energy would carry extreme risks. The world understands these risks, but because of partisan bickering, the world has stalled in its work to explore renewable energy. If humanity does not unite on this issue, then, in the future, the Earth may be vastly altered, and humanity may never recover.

Nationalizing the Banks

I won't talk about energy. I will talk about the nationalization of banks. This move is huge. Nine big banks have $125 billion dollars. Bush wants $100 billion more. This move may be good or bad. Years ago, the government bought 80% of an Illinois bank. Our government lost $1 billion. Europe is performing this too. Yesterday, Europe risked $2.3 trillion dollars, and this money may not be enough. Democrats want $150 billion for later use. Everyone is complaining about this spending. Eunomia does not like the plan, and Paul Krugman does not like the management. It seems that everyone does not like the plan. President Bush is a bad President, and the plan has had difficulties. I think the plan is nice, though.

Some Great Election Blogs

Renewable energy is an important issue in this election, but renewable energy is not the only issue worth discussing. Nobody can decide which Presidential candidate to support by comparing the candidates' stances on only one issue, so I selected three links to blogs that deal with other issues. There were many blogs to choose from, and I cannot display all of them, but choosing three blogs from the entire collection was very difficult. You are welcome to explore other blogs that deal with issues, but I will show why you should visit these three blogs in particular, so I recommend that you visit these blogs first.

The Issue On Taxes by IGetNoSleep

Taxes are an important issue in the election, and, as IGetNoSleep has mentioned, are important in the Presidential Debates. There are analyses of these debates with respect to taxes, along with a plethora of information and links in one post. Recently, there was a post outlining an intriguing type of tax, but that post stands alone in its intrigue. However, IGetNoSleep posts earlier than the authors of other blogs dealing with election issues while maintaining an equivalent or higher level of post quality. If that speediness is insufficient, as of this post, the entire Vice Presidential Debate can be watched or read without interruption. In fact, the only reason not to look at this blog is an insignificant error in described post publication, as posts usually are published on Tuesdays or Fridays, not Tuesdays and Sundays. This error, though, can be easily repaired, and since taxes are discussed frequently, you would be wise to educate yourself with the information shown in this blog.

Apparently Money Doesn't Grow On Trees by Britney

This blog focuses on the economy, and, unsurprisingly, has some focus on the bailout plan. This blog, though, also has briefly outlined the less obvious declines in the global market. As of this post, the connection between the global markets has not yet been explored, but the post mentioning that fact was quite recent, and Britney counteracts this small gap by providing consistently large amounts of information in each post, and these posts may contain the most well-blended information in the blogs I looked at. There are also figures and a video on the economy to look at if you do not feel like reading Britney's posts. There is also a sidebar filled with the latest economical news, only adding to the saturation of information in the blog. In fact, given the obscurity of the global market on television, you may learn more about the economy from this blog than from the mainstream media.

Foreign Policy In Regards To Colombia by St3Vzla

Perhaps the most intriguing of all the blogs, this blog focuses on the issue of drug policy, particularly with respect to Colombia. The author, despite the little or no amount of coverage of this issue in the news, managed to collect a surplus of knowledge for one post. Many of the other posts, though, lack that large concentration of information, nor is there any news bar or similar extra addition, but the huge concentration of information is less than what can be found by researching other issues. Despite the difficulties in researching this topic, St3Vzla has maintained great variety in the posts so far, making this blog a nice blog to see one of several issues buried among the many other issues of this election.

A Theory on Political Inaction

Barack Obama and John McCain, as I mentioned in "The Earth, Energy, and Politics," are, in their proposed energy policies, virtually in agreement on renewable energy. The two candidates, though, have demonstrated major disagreements on energy with their votes as Senators since 2005. Their votes show the massive division between the candidates, but the Senate is not always as divided as the two candidates. In fact, most of the one hundred Senators seem to decisively vote for any bill focusing exclusively on renewable energy. However, bills that have any major reference to oil drilling or oil companies appear to divide the Senate, even if those bills focused on renewable energy. No matter why some Senators vote differently because of references to oil in those bills, fossil fuels clearly have a profound impact on politics. If the government was able to negate the influence of fossil fuels on politics, then the United States could make much faster progress on renewable energy.

The issue of renewable energy, however, is not just a domestic issue, but also an international issue. Internationally, however, the focus on renewable energy has been driven by global warming, which has sometimes divided the international community. Two international protocols highlight this division - the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol. The Montreal Protocol was formed to protect the ozone layer by eliminating ozone-depleting substances, and is often advertised as a symbol of international cooperation. This protocol was successful because of its scientific certainty, as the depletion of the ozone layer would have drastic consequences for life on Earth, since cancerous ultraviolet light would then be able to penetrate the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol, in contrast, was formulated to combat climate change by reducing the emissions of six greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Most countries have signed on to and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, but the United States has not. In fact, the United States Senate unanimously passed a bill called the Byrd-Hagel Resolution that essentially prohibited the United States from entering the Kyoto Protocol. America's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol is symbolic, not only because of its lone standing on the protocol, but also because of the universal agreement in the Senate on the opposition to the protocol. The United States did not reject the Kyoto Protocol because of a lack of scientific specificity, but climate change cannot be easily predicted. An increase in greenhouse gas concentrations will increase the Earth's temperature, but the resulting effects are completely variable, unlike the certain effects that would result from the depletion of the ozone layer. Without any certain prediction on global warming, many corporation likely remain skeptical, including oil companies. If scientists could retrieve more data on global warming, then all doubts would be erased, and the entire world would cooperate on global warming, not just America. The United States is important, but only the entire international community can stop global warming and keep the Earth in good condition, not only for the population, but also for future generations that will follow.

Can the Earth Power the World?

One of the Earth's main components is magma, and is often seen in its surface form of lava when launched out of a volcano. Magma, unsurprisingly, is extremely hot, and therefore, energetic. Given the dominance of magma in the Earth, its geothermal energy promises to be vast and plentiful. This bounty, however, is difficult to access, and can, currently, be only harvested in mass quantities through geothermal systems, which are places where the Earth's heat flow is shallow enough to pump the water required for energy transfer to the surface. Despite these limitations, geothermal energy remains viable as a major competitor. In fact, volcanoes and hot springs in the United States could potentially provide twenty-five percent of America's needed power. Additionally, up to eighty percent of America's geothermal systems may remain undiscovered, largely because of a supposed lack of defining surface features. If this estimate is true, then geothermal energy could easily power the entire United States and America would still retain an energy excess. The power of geothermal energy, though, is most strongly demonstrated in Iceland. Iceland may have a population of only three hundred and ten thousand people, but the country's twenty active volcanoes provide a pool of geothermal energy. Iceland has only harvested one percent of its geothermal potential, and the country already uses that small chunk of energy to heat eighty-five percent of the country's homes and generate eighteen percent of the country's electricity. Now, if Iceland harvested all of its geothermal potential, then the country's power consumption would be almost insignificant compared to its energy production.

This power source may be unlimited, but geothermal energy still has one drawback - waste production. Some geothermal plants emit carbon dioxide, a well-known greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, although the newest geothermal plants, called binary plants, emit virtually no carbon dioxide at all. Some geothermal plants also produce a solid-like sludge byproduct, and while a portion of the sludge can be sold, most of the waste is disposed of at specific sites. Despite this disadvantage, though, the environmental impacts geothermal energy creates are much lower than those of fossil fuels, all with low prices for geothermal energy. In fact, geothermal energy costs only three to three and a half cents per kilowatt-hour, while energy derived from an average power plant dependent on fossil fuels costs five cents per kilowatt-hour, which gives an incentive to transition to this renewable energy source.

Overall, geothermal energy has great promise, not only because of the vast potential energy for harvesting, but also because of the costs of producing this energy and the environmentally friendly technology available. Even with the relatively advanced technology required to produce geothermal energy, the cost of that energy is lower than that of fossil fuels. Additionally, geothermal energy could avoid contributing to global warming if all geothermal power plants advanced to the latest technology, thereby avoiding any of the unforeseen consequences that could potentially follow. If the world does transition to renewable energy, then I think that geothermal energy will provide a significant portion of the world's power consumption. That consumption may increase in the upcoming years, but with the surplus of energy at the world's disposal, humanity should have no problems in that area.

Biofuels: Renewable, but Clean?

Because most cars currently run on tangible fuels, many supporters of renewable energy have advertised biofuels, which are fuels generally created from plants. Since plants can reproduce to grow more plants, the supply of potential biofuels is virtually unlimited. The most familiar biofuel is ethanol, an alcohol that is mostly produced from corn sugars. Plants, however, are carbon-based, and this also applies for ethanol, meaning that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, will still be produced when ethanol is burned. However, ethanol can cut greenhouse gas emissions by up to twenty percent, and an energy law passed last year demands a fourfold increase in ethanol production by 2022. Ethanol, though, still requires at least 15% gasoline for effective burning, has only two-thirds the energy content of gasoline, and may increase smog concentrations in urban areas. Despite these drawbacks, ethanol is blended into approximately sixty percent of gasoline, and eighteen percent of the corn in the United States was used to make ethanol last year, with the energy law making continued growth of that figure almost certain. In fact, one hundred and thirty-four ethanol power plants are currently operational in twenty-six states, and seventy-seven additional ethanol power plants are under construction. However, the intense consumption of American corn, which will only increase from these new power plants, has driven corn prices to records or near-records. A new type of ethanol, called cellulosic ethanol, now promises to erase many of ethanol's weaknesses, but faces technological hurdles in mass-production. Cellulosic ethanol does not require corn for production, could generate more energy than gasoline, and would also lower greenhouse gas emissions. This new form of ethanol may still impact global warming, but may keep global warming at bay long enough to develop other renewable energy sources.

Ethanol may be the best known biofuel, but there is another type of biofuel - biodiesel. Biodiesel, as the name suggests, is a diesel alternative, but is mostly made from soybeans and oils, particularly used cooking oil. Given the prevalence of cooking oils in restaurant and fast-food chains, this fuel type is appealing, but suffers from a few difficulties. Biodiesel may contain a higher energy content than gasoline, but has a lower energy content than regular diesel. Furthermore, biodiesel may also reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the fuel may increase pollutant levels. Finally, biodiesel can damage cars at low temperatures. Biodiesel may be renewable, but the fuel offers very few benefits, and will likely never be distributed on a large scale.

Corn, soybeans, and oils are generally thought to be the major contributors to biofuel supplies. Many other fuel sources, though, can be used for biofuel production. Poppies, for instance, can be used to create biodiesel, and a power plant in Tasmania, Australia is already operational. Kudzu, the most invasive plant in the United States, could be used to generate two hundred and seventy gallons of ethanol per acre of kudzu, a comparable figure to corn's productivity of three hundred and thirty gallons per acre. Algae, another unknown biofuel source, in contrast, can produce ten thousand gallons of ethanol per acre. In fact, the first algae power plant, located in Texas, opened in April of this year, despite the incredible cost of twenty dollars per gallon for ethanol created by algae. The most intriguing source of ethanol, however, is not a plant, but instead, garbage. In fact, in a week, the garbage New York City disposes of could be used to fill the gas tanks of seven hundred and fifty thousand vehicles that can burn ethanol, and the United States and Canada have already approved power plants that process garbage. These discoveries are very intriguing, and some of these biofuel sources may even power a part of the world for a time.

Biofuels, however, still suffer from their fundamental flaw - their impact on the environment. No matter how innovative many of the discoveries regarding biofuels are, biofuels still contribute to global warming with carbon dioxide. Ethanol may serve as a temporary fuel for the world until the world can adapt to other renewable energy sources, but because of ethanol's contributions to global warming, the fuel cannot be permanent. Many renewable energy sources do not contribute to global warming, and society should pursue these to keep the Earth safe.

The Earth, Energy, and Politics

For many years, fossil fuels have dominated the energy needs of the United States, with these fuels currently providing eighty-five percent of U.S. energy and seventy percent of U.S. electricity. But now, with high oil and gas prices, the United States has given the issue of renewable energy much more attention. Ethanol, a type of biofuel, has become more popular, while Texas, a state often linked to oil, has surpassed California as the greatest producer of wind energy in the country. The issue of renewable energy has also taken precedence in the Presidential Election, with Barack Obama and John McCain both supporting the continued expansion of renewable energy sources. The United States should definitely pursue this expansion, but the country has been addicted to fossil fuels for a long time, and much of America's technology is dependent on fossil fuels to function. This technology will take time to evolve to renewable energy sources, and renewable energy will likely follow that time frame.

However, America cannot keep using its current fossil fuel technology, not only because of high oil and gas prices, but also because of global warming. This year, the world will emit an estimated thirty billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that heats the atmosphere. In fact, the Earth's temperature has already increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This figure may seem small, but temperature changes of two to three degrees may devastate species and ecosystems. These effects, though, are unpredictable, but both Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates acknowledge global warming as a reality. Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate, has been criticized for the postition that humans are the main cause of climate change, and TIME claimed she was more conservative on climate change than the current President Bush. Evidence, on the contrary, states that the probability that human activities are responsible for global warming is greater than ninety-nine percent. Despite this statistic, TIME has been accused of being liberally biased, and global warming has been discussed for many years without any focus until this election, where the environmental issue is now used to promote renewable energy.

Still, Obama and McCain both support two fossil fuels that may decrease greenhouse gas emissions - clean coal and natural gas. Coal is the most toxic of the three main fossil fuels, but clean coal is not burned like coal is burned. Instead, the coal is mixed with water and oxygen, then vaporized into a gas. This process does remove some pollutants, but carbon dioxide, the major pollutant, still remains. Some scientists tried to formulate a method of capturing carbon dioxide, but all funding for the project was canceled because of high costs. A coal imitator called E-Coal, which is derived from biological material, offers to reduce these emissions without losing any produced energy. The high costs of manufacturing the imitator, however, will likely limit the invention to the partial replacement of coal in power generation. Natural gas, in contrast to coal, is the cleanest of the fossil fuels. While the gas does emit carbon dioxide when burned, natural gas emits less additional pollutants than the other fossil fuels. Clean coal and natural gas remain limited because of the main disadvantage to fossil fuels - they are non-renewable energy sources. As I mentioned in my introductory post, fossil fuels take millions of years to form, and society is consuming those fuels much more rapidly that that rate of synthesis. Despite this drawback, clean coal and natural gas probably are the most feasible alternative energy sources until technologies powered by renewable energy can be developed.

In addition to these measures, McCain has also advocated two additional proposals - the construction of more nuclear power plants and offshore drilling. Nuclear power could be considered a renewable energy source, as ninety-five percent of nuclear fuel can potentially be recycled for additional power generation. Additionally, the risk of radiation exposure is low, with the average reduction of life expectancy being less than an hour, unlike the reduction in life expectancy from fossil fuels of three to forty days. The biggest drawback to nuclear power is not radiation, but the dependence of nuclear power plants on massive amounts of water for cooling. If there was a drought, a nuclear power plant would need to shut down, and this drawback has already forced a reactor in Alabama to go offline. Since the effects of global warming are unpredictable, nuclear power may or may not be reliable for the future.

Offshore drilling has become popular because of the huge demand for lower gas prices, but in reality, drilling would likely have little impact on gas prices. Even if America drilled in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, a protected zone that likely contains oil, as well as offshore, gas prices would only be reduced by about 3.5 cents, and, according to TIME, those savings would need several years to take effect. Again, TIME has been accused of being slightly liberal, but given the long time frame stated, the lowering in gas prices would likely be minimal. Despite this prediction, the ban on offshore drilling was recently lowered, but oil companies will likely not drill offshore until 2010. Speaking of the ANWR, though, Obama, McCain, and Joe Biden, Obama's running mate, all oppose drilling in the wildlife refuge, but Palin supports this proposal. According to the Anchorage Daily News, an Alaskan newspaper, Palin has supported renewable energy, but has "a 'failing record' on wildlife," as told by Kate Troll, the director of Alaska Conservation Voters. Now, most of Alaska does support this initiative, and supporters state that the environmental impact will be minimal. The National Resources Defense Council, in contrast, maintains that drilling in the refuge would fragment the habitat. No matter who wins the election, though, oil companies will likely drill offshore while the ANWR will remain what it was named for - as a refuge.

These differences, no matter how large they seem, are relatively insignificant. Barack Obama and John McCain are in virtual agreement on renewable energy, the less polluting energy sources of clean coal and natural gas, and global warming. On nuclear power, McCain only differs from Obama in the construction of nuclear power plants. This initiative may potentially provide more energy, but again, nuclear power is dangerously reliant on water. Offshore drilling, in fact, is the only real difference between the two candidates, and because of this, the issue is mentioned much more frequently in the news than renewable energy, despite the interest in the subject. Both candidates do talk about renewable energy, but when referring to each other or in joint appearances, which are broadcast the most, Obama and McCain refer to offshore drilling to try to make each other look bad and win over voters. These attacks have now made each candidate's energy policies seem, on television, centered on the candidate's support or opposition to offshore drilling, instead of renewable energy sources. Now that offshore drilling has been permitted, each candidate's energy policy could now become buried in a pile of disagreements on a host of other issues. To avoid this loss, these energy policies will need a new focus, one that should have been the focus from the beginning - renewable energy. Only then, with unity between Obama and McCain, will America begin to inform itself on renewable energy. With the end of the election in a month, that unity may indeed finally arrive.

Plug-in Hybrids: An Energy Stepping Stone?

(Thanks to IGetNoSleep, who brought this topic up in the previous post's comments.)

If you have been watching the automobile industry, you have probably heard of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles, or PHEV's. These technologically advanced cars basically carry a gasoline engine and a battery to store a large electric charge. Because of the battery, according to the California Cars Initiative, drivers who commute for relatively short distances with these cars would rarely need to purchase additional gasoline, instead using a regular power outlet to recharge the battery. Understandably, this technological concept is very appealing, not only because of the low cost of electricity, but also because of the promise of independence from oil and gasoline. PHEV's may seem to promote renewable energy, but PHEV's still use a non-renewable energy source - power plants driven by fossil fuels. In fact, in an article on USA Today, the increased use of electricity may increase soot, mercury, and sulfur dioxide emissions. One car, though, can be powered by more than just electricity and gasoline, and is the PHEV I have heard the most about - the Chevrolet Volt(pictured above). Not only does the Volt run on electricity and gasoline, but it can also be powered by ethanol and solar energy via an optional photovoltaic cell accessory. Many PHEV's may not be powered by these renewable energy sources, but PHEV's do eliminate the need for direct fossil fuel use. If renewable energy manages to become the dominate electricity provider, then PHEV's would definitely reduce pollution. However, for now, PHEV's are merely the first step of a staircase that society must climb to access renewable energy.

An Introduction to Energy

With the extreme prices for gasoline and crude oil, society finally decided to focus on an issue with major impacts on the future of humanity – the issue of renewable energy. Fossil fuels may be the dominate fuel of today’s society, but are hampered by its limited supplies. Once fossil fuels are depleted, they can only be reformed by decomposing organic material and allowing the newly formed peat to rest for approximately three hundred million years. Also, fossil fuels have been theorized, according to the Energy Information Administration, to contribute seventy-five percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Renewable energy sources do not contribute to these harmful emissions, and these sources regenerate much faster. Additionally, renewable energy sources can potentially provide untold amounts of energy. According to a diagram on Wikipedia, an online user-reviewed encyclopedia, the world consumes approximately fifteen terawatts of power. In the same diagram, geothermal energy alone can potentially provide thirty-two terawatts of power, wind energy could provide eight hundred and seventy terawatts of power, and solar energy can donate a whopping eighty-six thousand terawatts of power. Even with this immense power, renewable energy sources remain limited, primarily because of technological limitations and high costs. These drawbacks would give anyone, including myself, doubts, especially given the current financial situation. Despite my doubts, I still chose to support the vigorous pursuit of renewable energy, as I asked myself “What would happen if fossil fuels vanished, and society had no permanent alternatives?” I have already seen a preview of the answer in the current energy crisis, and I do not want to risk that crisis expanding to a larger scale.

Tommy