1. The Search for Alternative Energy
Written by Trevor Lythgoe
2. In the news on a typical day, amongst all the crime and ʻgloom and doomʼ
you are sure to hear about global warming and the search for an alternative
energy source at least once. It has even been the topic of hot debate in
Presidential elections, most particularly in debate over the United Statesʼ
dependence on fossil fuels. Currently fossil fuels make up about 78.4% of total
U.S. energy consumption (Annual Energy Outlook 2010, 11 April 2011) and
account for more than 56% of the increase in greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere. (Global Warming Statistics, IPCC, 12 April 2011) This increase in
greenhouse gas has led to the ʻwarming of the globeʼ by 1.33 ± .32°F (0.74 ±
.18°C). This may not seem like much, but when you consider that this happened
over the last hundred years and that it is projected to go up 2 to 11°F in the next
one hundred years, you can see how, if left unchecked, this could have the
devastating effect of making life on Earth a thing of the past. Not only is the globe
slowly warming under our fossil fuel inferno, but the United States is addicted to
foreign fossil fuels. In 2009 the U.S. Government spent $268.73 billion on fossil
fuel imports because we consumed almost 30% more fossil fuel than we
produced. In terms of oil alone, the US imported 62.5% of what it consumed
(Annual Energy Review, 2010.) Our voracious appetite for personal
transportation is evidenced by 72% of total petroleum based energy going to
moving our 842 vehicles per 1000 people in the United States, the number one
largest vehicle per capita rate in the world.
3. According to the Annual Energy Review (AER), in 2009 38.3% of our
energy consumed went to generating electrical power, 27% to transportation,
18.8% to industrial needs, and a meager 10.6% to residential and commercial. Of
the total energy consumed by the US, 35% comes from petroleum, 23.4% from
natural gas, 19.7% from coal, 8.3% from nuclear electric power, and 7.7% from
renewable energy.
Table courtesy of Annual Energy Review, 2009
It is theorized by many sources that the fossil fuels will ʻrun outʼ sometime
in the next 50 years. Currently most estimates fall near the year 2035. It is that
target date that drives the search for alternative energy from renewable sources.
Given the dire forecast for our childrenʼs future, the question arises, ʻWhat can
we do about this ʻenergy crisisʼ?ʼ U.S. energy consumption seemed to peak
about 2005-2008 and has seen a slow but steady decline since then, and 2009
4. saw the first major reduction in oil purchase from 11 million barrels per day to
about 9 million barrels per day. This may be due to the fact that the U.S.
experienced an economic recession in 2008 and the proverbial belt was
tightened and budgets were cut. It might also be that citizens are realizing they
can have an impact on the environment around them.
During a ʻsoap boxʼ at MIT in March, Sadoway, an Environmental Energy
instructor at MIT, surmised that there is no single source of energy that can
replace the demand for fossil fuels at a similar cost in the immediate future. While
there are many plausible sources of energy on our planet, the cost to utilize
these ʻother than fossil fuelsʼ is nearly absurd. One reason for the steep cost for
alternative ʻgreenʼ fuels is the lack of funding for research and development.
Types of Average
Energy Cost per kWh
Wind $0.08
Solar $0.25
Fuel Cells (Batteries) Variable depending on type
Hydroelectric $0.06
Nuclear $0.15
Biofuels $0.06-0.15
Natural Gas $0.035
Coal $0.05
Average US Commercial Rate $0.10
5. In comparison to current fossil fuel cost per kWh, hydroelectric is the next
cheapest, followed by wind power, both of which are very dependent on location
and are difficult to use ʻjust anywhere.ʼ Further, wind energy is completely
dependent on the weather and is particularly cheap to produce in the first place.
While its generation is clean and remarkably efficient, hydroelectric energy
can only be found near a water source. This poses a rather difficult problem in
building dams at all great water sources. The greatest hurdle for hydroelectric
power is the impact they have on the surrounding ecosystem.
Similar problems exist with nuclear and biofuel power. There is an
inherent fear in the word ʻnuclearʼ that scares many people away from the idea of
it becoming a safe alternative to fossil fuels. That fear label is not completely
without merit. Nuclear power has the most potential to go wrong. After all, we are
essentially harnessing the power of the sun on a very small and controlled scale.
There is also the very real possibility of the nuclear power and research being
used for nuclear armament.
These factors lead to higher startup costs and difficulty in getting them in
to a mass production market where revenue could be made and reinvested into
research and development of cheaper, more efficient and economically viable
solutions to our energy needs. In short, it will be very difficult to find an alternative
in the next 25 years to what has been established in the last 100. As stated by
the American innovation council: “The United States does not have a realistic,
technically robust, long-term energy strategy. Without such a strategy, there is no
6. coherent way to assess energy, environmental or climate policy, nor is there a
coordinated framework for developing new technologies. The result of this
neglect is reflected in our nationʼs history—with oil-driven recessions, trade
deficits, national security problems, increasing CO2 emissions, and a deficit in
energy innovation.” We as Americans can no longer afford to do nothing. We can
no longer afford to do as little as we have been in the past. We must step up
commitment to the cause and find an alternative source of energy to the fossil
fuels we are consuming at staggering rates. If we fail in this endeavor, our
children may not have a future.
7. Resources:
American Innovation Council,
http://www.americanenergyinnovation.org/recommendation-1/
Retrieved on (2011, 15 Apr).
Annual Energy Outlook 2010
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/pdf/0383(2010).pdf
Retrieved on (2011, 11 Apr).
Annual Energy Review 2009
http://www.eia.doe.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf
Retrieved on (2011, 10 Apr).
Bloom Helps Drive Fuel Cell Adoption. (2011, Mar 23).
http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id43525
Retrieved on (2011, Apr 12).
Global Warming Statistics 2010, http://www.theglobalwarmingstatistics.org/the-
global-warming-statistics. Retrieved on (2011, Apr 11).
Johnson, G. (2011, Mar 31) Are Solar Power Incentives A Nasty Regressive Tax
On The Poor/Misinformed? Retrieved Apr 12, 2011, from
http://blogs.forbes.com/gordonjohnson/2011/03/31/are-solar-power-
incentives-a-nasty-regressive-tax-on-the-poormisinformed/
Kadak, A., Macfarlane, A., Reis, V. (2011, Feb 24) The Future of Nuclear Energy.
MIT World Environment/Energy – Audio [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from
http://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/environment-energy-audio/id382420941
(2011, Apr 11).
8. Sadoway, D. (2010, March 25). Fuel Cells and Portable Power Solutions.
MIT World Environment/Energy – Audio [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from
http://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/environment-energy-audio/id382420941
(2011, Apr 11).
