The More You Know

Over the time since I have started writing this blog the way I think has changed. My view of how blogs are used and what their purpose is has been altered. Also, I can more clearly see and understand energy issues and the response to these issues our presidential candidates are making.

At first I thought of blogs as a stupid creation. I imagined all of them to be the diary of a depressed sixteen year old girl. I was wrong. I didn’t respect blogs before for the reason I like them now: anything can be posted on a blog. This means when the news partially reports on a subject a person can still look into it and inform everyone else. There is only so far the media can go before they worry about offending people, but a blog can push that limit to the point of truth.

I began this blog with the knowledge I had from an environmental science class I took two years ago. I could tell you about how polution from coal plants is effecting the environment with sulfur emissions and other compounds. Also, I could tell you roughly about the Yucca Mountain site where we are planning to stick all of our excess nuclear waste that should have already been cleaned up. I even knew of other nuclear power related accidents, such as Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. Both nuclear events involve a catastrophe that was involved with human error that could have been solved with a larger budget. I had a rough idea of my own value concerning energy and how it affects the world around me, but I decided I wanted to learn more.

I have learned of ecological disasters like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. This oil tanker run aground has made me believe that our energy markets should be more regulated to help the safety of our environment. Also, the Exxon Valdez event and other oil spills from hurricane Katrina have shown me how ecology can be partially ignored by the government in times of crisis.

My thoughts about the presidential candidates have changed also. I assumed that Obama would go green and McCain wouldn’t really care about clean energy, but I was wrong. McCain does want to develop cleaner coal power plants. Obama does have an energy plan that is more dependent on creating more environmentally friendly energy sources. I loved to learn that both candidates wanted to lower the United States dependence on oil, specifically foreign oil. I still do not like how McCain is supporting off shore oil drilling. I believed that this is a problematic process and that it is still a problematic process.

The more I have put thought into the entire subject I like both candidates stances for different reasons. I liked McCain support of developing more nuclear power, but McCain still is holding onto coal power to much. I think it is a close decision and I will endorse Obama to win because of his anti-drilling policies. Obama seems to be committed to cleaner power that doesn’t hurt the environment as much. I can now comprehend these energy issues better and help other with them.

Heaven let your light shine down

Well, were following Europe's lead with our financial troubles. We might as well follow them when it comes to energy. The Catholic Church is installing solar panels on some of the buildings in the Vatican City. The Pope says that he wants to promote environmentally friendly energy. The solar cells used were given to the Pope as a gift.

Even though this measure was done due to charity, it is still a step in the right direction. If the Vatican can recap the money they would spend it will send a powerful method. Lets hope the world can follow their lead.

If we dont act

If energy issues are ignored the future is quite dark. Our access to oil and natural gas reserves will be exhausted, nuclear waste will pile up ignored, and the environment will continue to become more and more polluted. With a little bit of work and though on the public bleak future will can be brightened.

If we keep doing what we are doing CO2 levels will keep rising just from people burning fossil fuels. Currently, nuclear waste is just stored in facilities on site at plants. Nuclear waste will build up and this could lead to easier nuclear proliferation. Coal burning power plants will continue to spread sulfur into the environment which creates acid rain.

We should deal with our energy issues as quickly as we can. Otherwise, we will fall down our slippery slope.

What Does It

Education and economy a key to environmental and energy issues. Lack of education keeps people from fully comprehending the environmental issues that arise from energy. At the same time this ignorance is mixed with economic issues. When these two issues combine strong polarized views are created.

Groups like the Sierra Club focus completely on the environment but lack a careful analysis of economic issues. Likewise oil interest groups look purely at economic issues. The problem with this arises when the average person doesn’t understand all the issues. Companies are easily able to pull the wool over the average mans eyes. These companies have thought manly of economy and has resulted in laws like CERCLA to combat the environmental issues companies have created. CERCLA is a legislation enacted that sets up a fund to pay for the environmental disasters companies have made.

Such divided sides can be stopped with better education. There is a happy medium between economy and environment. Do you know what makes the energy you buy? If you said a power plant your right, but there is more to it than that. People should be conscious of what energy we use. Knowing the use of petroleum accounts for 44% of energy in the US makes a difference in how we think of our energy sources. A better world can be created from a better mind.

Coal Power

I believe that coal power is the worst energy source because of its emmisions. Coal power accounts for a large portion of the United States energy production. The Unite States has 25% of the worlds coal reserves. Because the United States has such a large amount of coal it is used quite quickly and easily.

The United States Department of Energy acknowledges that a significant amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere from coal power plants. It is also important to note that coal releases large amounts of mercury into the atmosphere. Coal power plants also release radioactive fly ash into the environment. With all of the byproducts created by conventional coal plants something must be done.

Both candidates are interested in reducing emissions from coal plants. McCain wants to spend two billion dollars annually on clean burning coal methods. Obama is slightly more vague and wishes to create four prototype clean coal plants and further research coal technologies. America is sitting on a large amount of energy that is slowly hurting us, and we should be working to harness both its energy and environmental potentials.

Nuclear Power

One of the largest differences in Obama’s and McCain’s energy plans is their views on nuclear power. McCain is all for more nuclear power while Obama is against it. I believe that the general fear of nuclear power comes from ignorance on the issue. Let us examine nuclear power and how it effects the environment.

The largest environmental advantage nuclear power how it's low impact the environment. While conventional fossil fuels release ton of CO2 and other compounds into the atmosphere, nuclear power only releases excess heat in the form of steam. Concerns on nuclear power stem from handling and disposal methods. A research study done by MIT in 2003 suggest that nuclear power is a great candidate as a power sores to reduce CO2 emissions and will be used heavily in the next 50 years.

I believe nuclear powers main drawback is the lack of long term nuclear waste storage facilities. Much of the waste emitted from plants will stay radioactive for thousands of years and we do not currently have a facility to store this waste. One proposed option is to create breeder reactors which would take nuclear waste and help convert it into a form of waste that is less dangerous. Another suggested method of waste disposal is theSubductive Waste Disposal Method. In this method waste is placed underground and is carried deeper underground by tectonic plate movement. All current plans have their own pros and cons, but something does need to be done about current waste storage.

While nuclear power is a great solution, stricter controls on waste must be put into place. Much more clean energy could be put into place if the government started an even more heavily regulated plan to control nuclear energy and its byproducts.

What are we buying out?

America’s banks are being nationalized. Paulson’s bailout plan has been changed. Instead of buying toxic mortgages we are buying the banks. $250 billion are going to the banks in either shares of the bank or commercial paper. Major stable banks were voluntarily forced into being bought out. This plan is a result of plans in Europe. Now is the time of semi-free market capitalism.

What does this mean? In the short term the freeze on the banking crisis could stop. This is good, but the long term effects could be bad. What if the banks don’t re-privatize? Who is making money under the table? When will the system be permanently right instead of temporarily right?