Tag Archives: environment

Long-term energy solutions: Is nuclear our best option?

While we’re definitely big optimists here at Futurismic on alternative energies, there are downsides to most of what we consider clean energy.  Biofuels in their current incarnation pits the hunger of the poor against the hunger of our poor.  Solar is at the mercy of cloudy weather and efficiency concerns, while similar problems face wind power.  And coming from the Midwest United States, tidal power generators aren’t going to do me a lick of good.

The far-thinking people at the Long-Now Foundation had two very fascinating speakers back in September whose theory is that nuclear is the way to go.  They’re not your usual nuclear shills, either.  Gwyneth Cravens wan an anti-nuclear activist who marched against the bomb and against the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant on Long Island.  The other is an sustainable organic-farming, bee-keeping, nuclear expert at Sandia Labs called Dr. Richard Anderson.

Their point is that alternative energies are largely tied to the whims of nature, something not good enough to supply the baseload power for our energy needs.  They do bring up some scary thoughts on our current use of fossil fuels, and make comparisons to what we would consume using nuclear.  One fun tidbit is that all the nuclear waste that would be generated to provide power for the average American over the course of their life would fit inside a Coke can.  Give it a listen if you can, but at least read the blog summary.

Personally, I think nuclear’s the way to go, at least for the moment, although I definitely think wind and solar can and should be used to provide supplemental power.  Maybe someday we can move to completely clean energy, but that day hasn’t come yet.

(image via Operators Are Standing By)

A new king of the Rubbish

This refuse isn’t going awayIt’s that classic pub quiz question that fools everyone: what is the biggest man made thing on the planet? Of course, nine times out of ten we’ll say with great confidence “The Great Wall Of China”. After all, it can be seen from space, right? However the smug quizmaster (or a contestant that had this question in trivial pursuit years ago) will inform you that the real answer is rubbish: the giant landfill of rubbish on Staten Island, Fresh Kills. The remains of the World Trade Centre is there.

However, if you get this question in a quiz, you can now happily outsmug the quizmaster, albeit tinged with a bit of self-loathing for the impact of your species. The largest man-made object is now an even bigger collection of human waste. It’s not a landfill, at least not intentially. It’s the size of Africa, some ten million square miles. It’s at the centre of the Pacific ocean and it’s full of plastic refuse. The circular atmospheric currents form a ring of current, inside which there is a still region of ocean where anything drifting into the Pacific accumulates. Non-biodegradable plastics that reach this point will never leave, being broken down by the sun into ever smaller pieces to make their way into the entire marine food chain.

[via Daily Kos, image by countrygirlathome]

Good news for solar power, but problems remain

From FuturePundit, we get a rough outline of the solar situation in the US.  Basically, solar power is growing more popular, but the percentage of homes using solar power is still tiny.  According to this article at the Wall Street Journal, various problems await homeowners looking to install solar panels.  In addition to months-long waits, one of the biggest problems is that the panels are installed incorrectly, making them very inefficient.

Overall, though, solar usage is growing and expanding into markets beyond conventional home power.  Golf carts, pool heaters, and solar water heaters are all becoming more popular.  Other good news includes a move from solar thermal cells, where the sun heats up liquid that is used to make electricity, to photovoltaic cells which convert sunlight directly into electricity.

As a young, single guy who hasn’t lived in a place more than three years since high school, buying a house and making it energy efficient won’t happen anytime soon.  I plan on keeping a close eye on developments, however.

(image via Beige Alert)

(Yet another) reason why biofuels may not be the answer

In addition to worries about driving up food prices around the world, especially in developing nations, there comes a study from Nobel Prize-winning scientist Paul Crutzen that biofuel may be even worse for us than fossil fuels.  The team calculates that biofuels can release 50-70% more carbon dioxide than fossil fuels, as well as release roughly twice as much nitrous oxide (N2O) as previously thought.

I think the problem here is that everyone is looking for a way to maintain their current standard of living and not admit that this level of energy usage will have to decrease.  The funny thing is, it’s not all that difficult to reduce the usage, if only just a little.  I think it’s actually more difficult to get your car converted to biodiesel than biking/walking to nearby places and not leaving lights on.  But that’s just me.

(via SciTechDaily) (image from neilsphotoalbum)

Update: Apologies, I misread the news report. I should’ve found the original paper first. It turns out that Dr. Crutzen found that N2O was marketdly increased, and if the environmental effects of N2O were converted into how much cooling CO2 would do, it comes out to be the afore-stated 50-70% increase. Which is a lot. Dr. Crutzen also stated he did not take into account the fossil fuel required to power the agricultural process (plowing, harvesting, etc), not did it take into account any beneficial co-products. He only focused on N2O production. It seems there is also some controversy about the efficacy of the calculations used. Please see the paper here(pdf).

Is space the third option?

Out here, noone can here you scream for more resourcesIn a move that will excite many science fiction fans, a political scientist from Norway has suggested there may be a third way to solve the coming environmental problems of the21st century: Space. He posits that there are two theories for sustainable development. One, Ecologism, aims for a post industrial era of lessened use of carbon and requires a change in the way our current political and social climate works. The other is Environmentalism which aims to keep life much as it is, only using funds to develop, repair and nurture the environment. However, he thinks that by tapping into the resources offplanet, it may be able to solve the Earth’s issues. Reading the brief it seems like very much a political rather than scientific hypothesis but there’s definitely a place for space in the coming time when resources become scarce – we just have to know where to look.

[from science daily, photo by Hubble Creative Commons]