Vinnie's+Project+Essay


 * ​Wind Energy **- Wind energy uses large wind turbines to produce power from the Earth's natural wind currents. Contrary to popular belief, wind energy can be utilized without taking up a large amount of otherwise useful space. While many wind companies use land that could potentially produce food for a bourgeoning population, Vento Del Mare, among other companies, uses offshore wind rigs. This is space that would otherwise not be used. Wind energy has also risen to be one of the cheapest forms of energy available, due to the presence of wind around most of the world. Also, with the advent of new technologies in wind turbine design, small wind turbines can be placed on the roofs of houses, potentially providing enough energy for the whole house.


 * Solar Energy **- "To convert the country to solar power, huge tracts of land would have to be covered with photovoltaic panels and solar heating troughs. A direct-current (DC) transmission backbone would also have to be erected to send that energy efficiently across the nation" (//Scientific American-// Zweibel, 65). Doesn't this seem like it would take a lot of money, and man hours, to complete? Not to mention the 250,000 square miles of land in the Southwest that would be needed to erect all the solar panels needed. However, the conversion to wind energy has already started. Wind turbines can be placed offshore, using space no one would use, versus using potential farmland. Also, personal wind turbines are available, and are much less expensive than solar panels. While solar-powered water heaters, as well as solar panels for the roofs of houses are available, they are often very expensive, and not very efficient. Wind turbines, however, are more efficient AND less expensive.


 * Biofuel Energy **- " Although the technology is well understood, the reactors are expensive. An FTS [Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis] plant built in Qatar in 2006 to convert natural gas into 34,000 barrels a day of liquid fuels cost $1.6 billion" (//Scientific American-// Huber, 56). 1.6 billion dollars? That sounds like a lot, mainly because it is. And this is a lot of money to pay for a technology that is: already used, and has been deemed as inappropriate for long-term usage. That's right, the flex-fuel that you feed your mammoth of a Chevy with, designed to be a "more environmentally friendly SUV," is an out-of-date, archaic fuel source. There is not enough land to support a large economy first-generation biofuels, such as E-85 and Flex-Fuel (basically corn-based gasoline); also, the total emissions created by harvesting, refining, and producing these fuels are constantly rising. Thus, Biofuel energy, as it exists today, is NOT as efficient as many think it is. Wind energy, however, is much more efficient, and cheaper to produce.


 * Nuclear Energy **- "Today 103 nuclear plants crank out a fifth of the nation’s total electrical output. And despite residual public misgivings over Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the industry has learned its lessons and established a solid safety record during the past decade" (//Scientific American-// Lake, 73). However, all the nuclear plants (ALL of them) in the United States produce only 1/5 of our nation's energy needs. That may seem like a lot, but not when you consider that there are 104 active reactors. Also, when was the last time anyone told you of a wind farm exploding, spreading large amounts of nuclear waste over the surrounding area? It hasn't happened before in the wind energy business, but accidents like that have happened before in nuclear plants. Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, and Three Mile Island in New York are two very well known examples. While nuclear energy may be environmentally clean in the sense that nuclear reactors do not produce green house gases, just water vapor, they also happen to produce tons of nuclear waste, in the form of used (radioactive) fuel rods. These fuel rods are "sealed" into drums and buried, though there have been many cases involving leakage of the "sealed" drums. A very well-known example of this is Love Canal in Ohio. Wind farms produce no waste, until a wind turbine becomes out-of-date, in which case it can be sold as scrap metal, melted down, and made into something new. So once again, wind farms produce no waste.


 * Hydroelectric Energy **- "A major focus of the advanced hydropower technology effort is on [...] fish injury and mortality associated with [...] fish injury mechanisms" (USDE, 9). Injuring fish? Why do we want an energy system that, in a quote from the United States Department of Energy, talks about "fish injury mechanisms?" While wind farms may seem like they endanger birds, in actuality, the wind turbines are spinning too slowly to injure any wildlife. Hydroelectric power site are also very unsightly dams, smack in the middle of often pristine nature locations. Wind farms can be placed offshore where no one can see them. Also, hydroelectric energy is much less efficient than wind energy.

Huber, George W., and Bruce E. Dale. "Grassoline at the Pump." //Scientific American// (2009): 52-59. Print. "Hydropower: Setting a Course for Our Energy Future." //United States Department of Energy Wind and Hydropower Technologies Program//: 1-23. Print. Lake, James A., Ralph G. Bennett, and John F. Kotek. "Next-Generation Nuclear Power." //Scientific American// (2001): 72-81. Print. Zweibel, Ken, James Mason, and Vasilis Fthenakis. "A Solar Grand Plan." //Scientific American// (2008): 64-73. Print

Home