Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Sure Energy

The research being applied to sources of clean energy seem to be increasing throughout the years.  As observed with the disaster in Japan, each energy source has some flaws to it.  Nuclear reactors produce fear in the public just as the instance in Fukushima.  Radioactive elements released into the atmosphere is a big issue and despite the fact that statements have been made that there are minimal amounts present which are not "likely" to increase health problems, there IS still that possibility that radiation may raise chances of health problems to those individuals exposed.  The oil spill was certainly a disaster and set many businesses back for a period of time.  Oil exposed to the atmosphere however, has less (basically zero) human health impacts.  In the case of wind farms and solar power, large amounts of turbines as well as panels are required to produce incremental amounts of energy that oil and natural gas are capable of generating.  Technology in drilling seems to strike significant findings in the aspect of ways to improve economic operations in the extraction of hydrocarbons in spontaneous instances.  These advancements change the whole perspective of fossil fuels, like shale and tight gas sands have done so recently.  The minds of engineers and R&D staff in the oil and gas industry are always turning, and there are multiple methods to improve economic recovery out there that are waiting for that one spark to begin applying practices in industry.  The spark may come tomorrow, next month, or a year from now.  Natural gas is said to be cleaner burning fuel than oil, but a refining technique may arise an option to generate cleaner fuel in the future with the quick changes that the ever expanding oil industry experiences.  The public seems to want to through out drilling for hydrocarbons much more easily than other sources of energy which can result in a disaster such as a nuclear one for example.  Cleaner energy is more beneficial to the environment, but the fact is that the U.S. is starving for energy, and the one sure source which has been around for many years is oil.


2 comments:

  1. Well, it depends on how you look at it. I definitely respect your point of view here, but to play devil's advocate, there are some very smart people out there who make good arguments that burning coal and oil are contributing to climate change, and that this is having (or going to have) very severe health effects. It could contribute to increasing scarcity of fresh water in some areas and deluges in others, for example. And ask anyone in the Bronx or Long Beach about their air quality: breathing in smog isn't healthy. So clearly we depend on oil and gas and coal for many things, but that doesn't mean you can't also make some compelling arguments for their harmful effects.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see your point as well. It seems that some people cringe at the idea of radiation being released into the atmosphere in terms of nuclear energy. I guess it just feels less threatening, in my opinion, to think of long term health effects due to poor air quality in some areas rather than radiation floating all over the world. Great point though, and I understand the other side you presented here.

    ReplyDelete