Renewable Energy Resources or Fossil Fuels:
Global Warming, Efficacy and Cost
Jeneen Rybak
English Composition II
Professor Sharon Carmack
December 27, 2012

Throughout history, people have consistently developed a more convenient way to manage daily life. They have created ways to have access to fresh clean water, systems to remove human waste from within the home, heat, transportation, and electricity. People have become accustom to convenience, without thinking about the damage they could be causing to their own environment. It has become apparent that the human race has inadvertently and irreversibly caused damage to the very environment they depend on. Most of this damage is in our atmosphere due to the use of fossil fuels and the emission of carbon dioxide. Now is the time for the U.S Environmental policy to focus on developing renewable energy resources rather than further developing more oil resources. Global warming can be seen in numerous different forms, including severe weather patterns, changing seasons and melting glaciers. Since 1912, the Kilimanjaro snows have melted more than 80 percent and the glaciers of the Himalaya in India are retreating so quickly that researchers believe they could completely disappear by 2035. Even the migration pattern of animals and insects has changed with the rising temperatures (Glick, 2004). Though the cost of renewable energy sources may be slightly higher than oil (Rangarajan, & Guggenberger, 2011), it seems a minor concern when compared to the implications of global warming. Many people understand the damage and dangers of continuing to use fossil fuels, but they know little about renewable energy resources. They are told it comes at a higher cost and that it is unreliable, or they simply have not been educated about renewable energy. Yet, with the ability to use different renewable resources in sync with one another, the reliability of renewable energy can be 100 percent (Rangarajan, & Guggenberger, 2011). The cost of converting over to renewable energy would make up for itself through the independence and efficacy found in relying on our own country for energy. According to the scholarly journal Climate Policy: “The distinguishing characteristic of renewable energy sources is that they are derived from natural processes that are continually renewed” (Krey, Clarke, 2011). Renewable energy resources include a wide array of energy sources and technology including: solar power, hydroelectric power, wind power, geothermal energy, ocean-based energy, biomass energy and even nuclear power (Espinoza, 2011). Excluding nuclear power and biomass, each one of the renewable resources would be most beneficial to certain regions. Solar power will be most suitable in regions high in sunlight and wind turbines work more effectively in regions with frequent wind currents. Geothermal energy is best harnessed in regions with volcanic activity due to how close the magma is to the surface of the Earth, while hydroelectric power and ocean-based energy will be more efficient in areas near water. “Considering the benefits of each region is a vital part of developing a renewable system that is both effective and reliable” ("Energy wise: Developing," 2005). Biomass is a form or renewable energy that does not run out, utilizing plant and animal material to create energy. Biomass has the ability to heat homes as well as supply the remaining energy needs. This is also a great way to dispose of certain waste products. Biomass has low carbon emissions and can also be built on a small scale, making it possible to supply energy to individual homes and even transportation vehicles ("Energy wise: Developing," 2005). Not only is biomass endless, it is available in any region and any country. As long as there is waste and plant life, there is the ability to harness that energy. Nuclear power is also another form of renewable energy. Many people fear nuclear power plants due to past events such as the Chernobyl accident that took place in1986 in Chernobyl, Ukraine. This accident involved nuclear reactor 4, which exploded and sent radiation into the environment. It is estimated that thousands of people will die from indirect results of this catastrophe and 31 did die as a direct result. (World Nuclear Association, Chernobyl Accident 1986. 2012). However, researchers are developing designs for nuclear power plants that are smaller in size with a higher efficacy and that are also safer from natural disasters and terrorist attacks. These new designs contain a pebble bed consisting of graphite beads containing uranium. These pebbles do not dissolve in water, and can remain in the environment for thousands of years intact, making them extremely safe for the environment. The cost of these smaller infrastructures is a fraction of the cost of todays traditional nuclear power plants, which can run in the billions to construct (E2 | energy: Coal, 2007). Even though nuclear power is safe for the environment because it does not release harmful gas into the atmosphere, many people will continue to worry about the harmful effects of radiation. Uncontrollable factors such as natural disasters and terrorist attacks seem to make people turn their heads away from nuclear power energy and look elsewhere. Researchers are working diligently to design an economic, effective and safe alternative to fossil fuels. With the use of the present renewable resources we have available, the United States could have nearly 50% of its energy produced from renewable resources (Espinoza, 2011). These are facts that need to be given to people so they are educated about the options available for renewable resources. In an article from the Wall Street Journal; “The sun produces enough energy in just one hour to power the world economy for an entire year” (Espinoza, 2011). Having resources such as this is an incredible asset as it makes countries self-reliable and saves the environment. Even though researchers have found that solar energy may not be 100 percent reliable, with an integration of more than one renewable energy resource available, renewable energy can be completely reliable. In many countries such as Scotland, wind turbines are very common because of the constant wind currents. In fact, the residents of Scotland now have individual wind turbines that can be connected to the roof of their home, supplying their energy needs. The cost is substantially lower than connecting the entire country, so citizens are able to make the change to renewable energy much faster than the United States. Sweden has moved forward and now runs over 800 buses, 4500 passenger cars and also a passenger train, all on biomass. In India, a solar power company now supplies over 40,000 families with reliable energy and works with the communities to unite to cover the cost of installation over a period of time . With 95 percent of air pollution resulting from the use of fossil fuels, these countries are leading the way to a cleaner, healthier environment ("Energy wise: Developing," 2005). These countries are leading the way to a greener way of living, and not losing any conveniences of the modern world. Another method researchers have developed is the capturing and sequestering of carbon dioxide from burning coal. Sequestering is the act of capturing and storing carbon dioxide deep within geographical formations (“E2 | energy: Coal and nuclear, “ 2007). Not everyone looks fondly at sequestering. As stated by Kamman (2007), “pumping co2 around the countryside, sending it underground, carbonating aquifers, maybe opening up ruptures and leaks where it might come out, this is a process that's got a lot of problems, and for the added cost, and it might even double the cost per kilowatt hour of coal, I believe we can go to a set of greener options”. Regardless of whether sequestering is 100 percent leak proof or not, the United States alone puts 1.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. If we began capturing the CO2, it could be stored for possibly thousands of years (“E2 | energy: Coal and nuclear, “ 2007). The largest negative to renewable energy resources is the cost of establishing the infrastructures. According to a cost analysis of the renewable energy conference held in 2011, the cost of constructing the infrastructures; including government incentives, is far from cost effective. For an average size farm in Columbus, Ohio which would require three kits of solar panels, it would cost over $27,000 to install the system. With a tax incentive of 30 percent the final cost is still a staggering $18,905. The same farm would require only one wind turbine, with the same tax incentive of 30 percent, the cost of installation still remains over $34,853. There are not many people who can afford such a price tag in todays economy. Biomass infrastructures are the most economical to install and supply more energy. In Ohio, a biomass system can supply 210 farms, only costing each farm $7,143 if they work together as a community (Rangarajan & Guggenberger, 2011). When taking into consideration all the countries and economies, financial figures such as these can slow down progress. However, if researchers can find a way to connect communities as one, they will have found an economic solution to the issue of cost. Another negative issue with renewable energy resources is the integration of these systems. Researchers have investigated ways to connect the United States as a whole, but they have not found a plan that is reliable. This area needs more research done before a method can be established. It may not be possible to use power lines that are presently connecting everyone. Though this would seem logical as the United States is connected to the grid, it may not be possible. Researchers are working on developing a solution to this problem and may find that it would be best to supply communities or regions based on what resources are prevalent to them, rather than connecting an entire country. Scotland, Sweden and India are all showing the world that it is possible to solve this problem and find a efficient, economical means to alternative energy sources. No matter how the issue of renewable energy is viewed, it cannot be overlooked that the use of fossil fuels such as oil has caused irreversible damage. Not only to the environment, but to all forms of life inhabiting this Earth, including humans. In his article “Fossil Fuels’ Hidden Cost Is in Billions, Study Says” Wald (2009) states “Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution, the National Academy of Sciences reported in a study issued Monday”. This includes health problems such as asthma, which plague more children each year. Respiratory issues can be the direct result of burning fossil fuels, some of which will require breathing treatments in order to survive. If the general public were to be educated about the pros and cons of renewable energy resources and fossil fuels such as oil, they would be able to make an informed, logical decision as to how they feel towards converting to alternative energy sources. The effects of fossil fuels can no longer be ignored. From oil spills and air pollution to health problems and global warming, it is time for the Environmental policy to focus on developing renewable energy resources rather than developing more oil resources.

References

Espinoza, J. (2011, May 16). Environment (A special report) --- green power: The next generation: The pros and cons of renewable energy sources. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/866527954?accountid=32521
Films Media Group. (2007). E2 | energy: Coal and nuclear-problem or solution? [H.264]. Retrieved from http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=18596&xtid=40992
Films Media Group. (2005). Energy wise: Developing renewable solutions [H.264]. Retrieved from http://digital.films.com/PortalPlaylists.aspx?aid=18596&xtid=37646
Glick, D. (2004). National geographic. Retrieved from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
Krey, V., & Clarke, L. (2011). Role of renewable energy in climate mitigation: A synthesis of recent scenarios. Climate Policy, 11(4), 1131-1158. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/875487237?accountid=32521
National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Department of Energy, (n.d). Geothermal Energy. Retrieved from http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/tech/geothermal-energy
Rangarajan, K., & Guggenberger, J. (2011). Cost analysis of renewable energy-based microgrids for rural energy management. IIE Annual Conference.Proceedings, , 1-8. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1190327686?accountid=32521
Wald, M. (2009, Oct.9). Fossil Fuels’ Hidden Cost Is in Billions, Study Says. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/science/earth/20fossil.html?_r=0
World Nuclear Association, (2012). Chernobyl Accident 1986. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html