The Conspiracy Of Suppression Of Alternative Energy

America should pursue alternative energy sources because “With only 5 percent of the worlds population, the United States consumes almost one-quarter (22.5%) of global energy”. (((Josef Bram, 15))) With such a small percentage of the world’s population and still one of the largest consumers of energy the U.S should be looking for new and better ways to generate energy. Currently The U.S’s energy is supplied using traditional sources. According to Canadian scientist and policy analyst Vaclav Smil “Todays energy 29% from coal, 33% from oil and gas, and 33% from soft-energy (alternative sources)” (((Smil, 47))) Most of the energy we use on a daily basis is not produced using clean methods. Some alternative energy sources that are already in place within the United Stats are wind, solar, and hydraulic.

Oil, gas, and fossil fuels have been recent controversial issues. There are cleaner forms of energy that could be used, but it is unclear what sources should be used and how to

With gas prices on a slow rise it is no surprise that the United States has a huge dependency on oil. In a recent statistic from the US Energy Information Administration stated that in 2012 alone roughly 10.6 million barrels of petroleum were imported into the US daily. Most recently BP was accused of spilling approximately 470 to 1228 gallons of oil. And in recent past the major oil spill with in the Gulf of Mexico which occurred in 2010 that is by many is considered to be the worst oil spill in US history. An estimated 4.9 million barrels of oil was leaked into the Gulf coast. Being detrimental to not only wildlife but also has a huge impact on the planets general population as well. Most if not all forms of transportation with a large portion being cars run on oil and little alternatives to what can be used as a substitute. With such a high dependency on oil as well as being a high risk factor why hasn’t the US looked to other forms of energy that are both clean and efficient? Many countries have found alternative ways to supply energy. Most notably Sweden, in which in later years has been noted to actually import waste to use for their energy. If a viable energy alternative is not implemented then dependency on oil may inevitably deteriorate the infrastructure in which this country is operated upon as well as consequently negatively affect natural resources and wildlife to a point in which it will be near impossible to rehabilitate.

At the beginning of last year, I convinced my family to start using environmentally products, focusing on green technology. In order to apply environmental technology properly and effectively, I had to figure out what alternative forms of energy existed and how well they worked. This led to my questioning: what other forms of energy could the United States be pursuing to increase its production of electricity? In an effort to research different form of energy and their benefits and detriments, I read two articles: “A Letter to the Editor” by David Rockwood and “Why Uranium is the New Green” by William Sweet. In his letter, David Rockwood, a professional engineer, discusses the several inaccuracies and possible ramifications of wind power as a main source of electricity. Rockwood claims that wind power is unreliable because of flaws in its system and design, not to mention the detrimental environmental impact. Similarly, in his article William Sweet, a college graduate, talks about different ways to impose some kind of carbon regulation. Sweet compares nuclear and wind power to coal-burning power, remarking that nuclear and wind power technologies can make an immediate beneficial difference on greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the fact that Rockwood goes in depth on only wind power while Sweet talks about multiple sources of power, both of the articles made me think that the United States should pursue some other form of energy to increase its production of electricity.

The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.

Evidence: The other sources for energy are not as sufficient because of the high cost. The technology is not advanced enough to have the opportunity cost equal the demand.

This year we have seen more electric and hybrid vehicle startups than ever before.” (Morrison) Nearly everyone recognizes the benefits of the shift, both in terms of how it would help our environment in the long term, but also the economic impact it would have, (reduced gas costs, lower electric and other utilities bills... etc.) But still, many large companies work to impede the progress in favor of maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. The American Petroleum institute has worked with many oil industry protection companies to stymie the renewable energy movement, even in some cases, “posing as environmentalist groups in order to attract the support of environmentalists while simultaneously pushing their anti-renewable agenda.” (Blankenhorn) Many of these companies striving against renewable energy also support the building of the Keystone pipeline, using the justification that the building of the pipeline would lower gas prices. But what they fail to acknowledge is the basic economic fallacy of this, “Fossil energy prices are not going to fall. The more you remove carbon-based resources from the ground, the more it costs to get more.”

Some of the major on-going controversies in this decade are Keystone XL pipeline , fracking, and climate change. These issues are co-related to each other and they all have one thing in common, energy from fossil fuels . Proponents for the Keystone XL pipeline & fracking argue that it would reduce the energy dependence on foreign oil. Although they are good for the energy security of the US, it may be a step backwards in terms of controlling climate change and looking for alternatives.

The main argument against switching to the alternative energies is that not everyone is willing to switch. People don't wish to switch because of the cost factor and that it may take a lot of time. That is foolishness. The reason no one wishes to switch is because they don't truly know how beneficial switching would be. Some even say they don't wish to switch because the American government won't either. The people who won't switch have not been completely informed. There is the savings benefit. Consumers can save a lot of money by making a switch. Consumers help the environment by switching and you help the economy. Most people would be willing, maybe even eager, to switch if they were well informed and knew the benefits of switching.

As the planet’s population continues to grow, so will the energy needs. Even with fast advancement of technology, humans are only able to extract so much oil in a given period. Relying solely on fossil fuels and pushing off the inevitable does not make sense. If all of the United States oil supply and every other non-renewable energy source had suddenly disappeared from the face of North America, Americans would have no choice but to rely on renewable energy resources and that would not be a problem. As more solar panels, windmills, and hydroelectric turbines were built and placed in their respective environments, the United States would be back on its feet within no time. This would eventually lead to lower energy costs and a much greener and environmentally friendly nation overall. In the long run, investing and focusing on renewable energy resources provides the United States with a fail-safe solution which would also provide citizens with the energy they need to power their everyday

The current technology in it’s infant stage isn’t capable of clearing the blockage to clean sustainable energy. According to a study by University of California, it is estimated that it will take 131 years to replace gasoline and diesel fuel which leave 90 years energy gap between end of conventional oil and alternative energy. Even if we start aggressively replacing biofuel, it will take much longer than the expected 30 to 40 years of known oil left so it is reasonable to conclude that it’s unlikely we will stop drilling and mining for oil even with all its known environmental and health risks. We can’t stop drilling but we can try to minimize the cost to our environment and our health through technological innovations but it will required great pressure from the people. We can’t rely economic forces to drive for innovation in energy because economic forces don’t account for 20 or 30 years ahead or any environmental factors; it simply cares only for short term profits. As long as oil remains relatively low, it will be business as usual because unless alternative energy can competitive in the market, it’s advancement and breakthrough will not occur. Biofuel have the potential to replace some of our fuel needs but replacing fields for fuel crops is challenge to our food supplies especially the future food crisis is an equally challenging problem in itself.

However, there are several reasons that the change from fossil fuel to alternative fuel has not happened. A huge reason that has caused the change to alternative fuel has not happened is money. There are a lot of powerful people who make their livings off of the U.S dependency on fossil fuel, and that would be financially devastated should the switch to alternative fuel be made. However, it not only the powerful people who make their livings off of the way things are currently done that would be effected; Anyone involved in the mining, shipping, pumping, transport, sale, and refinement of coal that depend on fossil fuels for their livelihood . That makes it considerably harder for the U.S make the change from fossil

The United States must re-examine many policies previously accepted as reasonable, especially its own national energy policy. As the largest overall and per capita energy consumer in the world, the U.S. needs to decide upon a reasonable source of energy for the foreseeable future, especially since its energy needs will increase dramatically during that time. With political instability likely to remain the norm in the Middle East, oil continues to be an energy source of questionable reliability; in addition, current estimates of worldwide reserves suggest we may in fact run out of oil entirely in the next fifty years. Natural gas reserves are in fairly short supply too, and costs limit its

Energy is an integral part of our daily lives. While organisms get energy to move from food, non-living appliances such as phones, lights, cars etc. get their energy from other renewable or non-renewable sources. The majority of energy consumed comes from non-renewable energy sources: fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal) and nuclear energy. In the past few decades, the issue of a potential “energy crisis” has arisen. Since people nowadays use such large amounts of fossil fuels, they will run out in the near future. Out of the three fossil fuels, oil and gas are the most widely used. It is predicted that, without taking into account the new reserves that could become accessible with the advancement of technology, oil and gas

Since, fossil fuels have been a part of our environment for some time now, they have been the main resource we’ve needed and used to keep our country running. The truth of the matter is, since we obtain fossil fuels from plants and animals that lived millions of years ago they will soon be gone. As indicated by Eric McLamb, founder, chief executive officer, and president of the ecology communications group, “The problem is fossil fuels are nonrenewable. They are limited in supply and will one day be depleted.” People realize that the crisis of running out of fossil fuels is upon us; however, these same people are timid about moving on to renewable energy. One main reason is because individuals do not believe renewable energy is cost efficient. For instance, solar energy is known to be fairly expensive, particularly more expensive than the conventional energy used now, which makes people uncertain about changing to renewable energy.