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.

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.

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.

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.