Final Wiki Essay

According to “The Economics of Renewable Energy”, “the history of industrial civilization is a history of energy transitions”. In less developed, agrarian economies, people’s basic need for food calories is provided through simple forms of agriculture, which is essentially a method of capturing solar energy for human use. Solar energy stored in firewood or other biomass energy meets other basic needs for home heating and cooking. As economies develop, its energy needs increase exponentially. “Historically, as supplies of firewood and other biomass energy proved insufficient to support growing economies in Europe and the United States, people turned to hydropower (also a form of stored solar energy), then to coal during the nineteenth century, and then to oil and natural gas during the twentieth century”. Currently, fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) are by far the dominant energy source in industrial economies as well as in developing economies (82% of global energy consumption). However, the next great transition in energy sources is upon us: from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources. Leading factors for this transition include concerns about environmental impacts, technological change, and limits on fossil fuel supplies. Much of the capital stock and infrastructure of modern economic systems are centered on fossil-fuel energy use, and thus any transition away from fossil-fuel dependence will require massive restructuring and investment. 

Commonly utilized renewable energy sources include biomass, hydropower, wind power, direct solar energy, and geothermal energy. There are pros and cons to each of these energy sources. 

Biomass is any fuel derived from plant matter, such as wood, crops, crop residues, and animal waste. There is, however, a negative externality of biomass use: air pollutants, as biomass is generally burned in some way. For biomass in all its forms, it is true that it requires large amounts of land to generate a significant amount of energy. Therefore, the economics of biomass are, to a large extent, land economics. This constitutes an opportunity cost, as the same land could be used to produce food or fiber. Due to these land constraints as well as the fact that the total quantity of biomass energy is relatively small in relation to current energy consumption, biomass can at most provide a small portion of total energy needs. 

Hydropower is the world’s largest source of renewable energy, generating about 16% of global electricity as of 2008. It can also be inexpensive where conditions are favorable. “ The total energy available from hydropower depends on the volume of water available (flow), and its

vertical drop (head). Head and flow are substitutes for producing hydropower: a given amount of power can be obtained with relatively low flow and high head, or with high flow and low head”. The best sites for hydropower have both high head and high flow (like Niagra Falls). However, many of these best sites have already been developed, and additional development would come at a higher cost. The U.S. Department of Energy released a report that indicated developing electrical generation facilities at existing dams could significantly increase hydropower potential. There are environmental externalities to consider as well. For example, in New England, the native salmon and shad populations were “reduced in part by dams blocking migration routes that fish used during spawning”. Tidal power, although related to hydropower, often has rather low average tidal head, implying higher costs. It also has a greater potential for environmental externalities in a marine environment. 

Wind power, like hydropower, faces issues of location. The difference between wind power cost on the best sites versus on less suitable sites is notable. Another drawback of wind power is that the amount of power available at any particular moment also varies greatly with wind speed. However, on the best sites, the electricity production from wind is very close to cost parity with sources like coal and nuclear power. Environmental externalities of wind power includes the aesthetic impact, noise from the wind in the turbine blades, as well as bird mortality from collisions with turbine blades. 

Solar energy comes in three basic forms: low temperature solar thermal, solar electric or photovoltaic (PV), and high temperature solar thermal. Low temperature solar applications include solar water/space heating. This method retains heat from the sun and uses it to heat air or water. The main issue with this source is that the greatest demand is in winter, when there is the least supply of sun. PV cells employ semiconductor material to generate a flow of electricity when struck by sunlight. The biggest issue of photovoltaics is that, though the technology is now well developed and reliable, it is also expensive compared to current energy sources. However, the costs of solar PV have fallen and are projected to continue that trend, so it is only a question of when these prices will become competitive in the energy market. 

Getting more into the economics of renewable energy, the world currently gets about 80% of its energy supplies from fossil fuels because these sources generally provide energy at the lowest cost. Be that as it may, the cost advantage fossil fuels hold over renewable energy sources has been and will continue to decrease as the supply of fossil fuels drops and renewable energy becomes more efficient and less expensive. At this point in time, it is not a matter of if, but when, the world will make the shift to renewable energy sources. It is important to make haste, as while we may yet still have a supply of nonrenewables, the impact they have on our environment may be too much for it to handle.

Works Cited

Timmons, David, et al. The Economics of Renewable Energy. Global Development and Environment Institute, 2014.

 

Th Paris Climate Accord Could Still be Possible

     The United States is the worlds second biggest carbon emitter. When the US pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, the global greenhouse gas emissions target set by the agreement seemed like it could be out of reach. Several events in the past four years have potentially changed the tone on the possibility of success for the Paris Climate Accord. 

    The pledges by countries not included in the accord to reach net zero emissions by the middle of the decade have helped optimism for global goals. China, Japan, and South Korea plan on reaching zero emissions by 2050. President elect Joe Biden also plans on reaching net zero emissions by 2050. It is estimated that by the time Biden steps into office, 63% of all global emissions will be accounted for by some form of net zero plan. If these countries can achieve their goals, the global warming projections will be well within the specifications of the Paris agreement. Only a year ago, 50-100 year climate change projections looked devastating. The unexpected ambition of the worlds largest polluter, China, has motivated other countries.

    The coronavirus pandemic has also given some unexpected boosts in pollution reduction. Global emissions have dropped roughly seven percent in 2020, and while this is likely a temporary reduction, government stimulus packages as a result of covid could play a huge role in pollution reduction. Many countries in the European Union have devoted significant funds toward "green" deals. One third of Germany's stimulus package will be directed toward renewable energy and electric vehicles. France is investing heavily in its automotive industry with the goal of becoming Europe's leading electric vehicle producer. The EU itself will be financing renewable energy research and infrastructure for electric vehicle charging. 

    If these new goals are met by the countries making them, the ambitions of the Paris Climate Accord will likely be realized.

 

“Too Much Of A Good Thing: The Cautionary Tale of Biotech Crops”

This article on NPR discusses the issues cotton and corn farmers are having with clean technology. The technology is modified cotton and corn plants that have been infused with a naturally occurring bacteria gene that kills off common pests of these crops. This gene only targets specific insect pests. This provides a big advantage over pesticides as it will only kill off the pest insects while leaving the other beneficial or non-harmful insects alive. It also means fewer to no chemicals are being spread out by the farmers, which saves them time and money as they do not need to spend the effort to distribute it across their fields. 

The problem has arrived from the overuse of this altered gene; the pest insects have evolved and become immune to it, due to the forced selection process which guarantees that only insects that are immune will survive and pass on the immune gene to future generations. The article presents a valid solution to this; a field of the crop that does not have the bacteria gene, which will be lost to the insects, and therefore not force only the immune insects to pass on their gene. 

However, farmers do not want to waste valuable land on a crop that is guaranteed to fail, even if it will benefit them in the long term. The article simply suggests the solution to this is more government regulations that force farmers to grow a “lost crop”. However, this is not a great solution, as it will force the farmers to adapt without providing incentives to change and understand why they need to have a crop without the gene that kills the pests. There are other solutions that the government can use that would fare better to promote clean technologies and help improve understanding. 

One way to do this is to have a subsidy for farmers to have “lost crops”. The government could buy the crop that is guaranteed to fail, which would provide a better incentive for farmers to have a crop like this. Another way is through technical assistance programs. These programs educate both the benefit of clean technology and how to use it. Luckily, for agriculture, these programs exist, in the form of state agricultural schools and extensive services. Actions such as these would work better than a regulation as it provides both incentives and understanding as to why having an unmodified crop will benefit their modified crops.

Charles, D., Sofia, M. K., & Hanson, B. (2020, December 01). Too Much Of A Good Thing: The Cautionary Tale of Biotech Crops. Retrieved December 12, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/transcripts/936621362

COVID-19 and Its Rapid Outbreak

According to the CDC, the earliest reported case was on December 31, 2019 in Wuhan, China (Pan, Bao, Fan, Liu & Douglas 2020). Within one month, the virus had spread rapidly to several other countries, including Italy, the United States, and Germany. The aggressive spread was partly due to the size of Wuhan (about 14 million people including full-time and transient) and its wide range of transportation, including airplanes, trains, interstate buses, and private transportation. Located in central China, Wuhan is a major hub and capital of Hubei Province, making it a horrible place for a pandemic to erupt. “The city is recognized as the political, economic, financial, commercial, cultural, and education center of Central China” (Focus on Wuhan). 

Since appearing in the United States, coronavirus cases have not exhibited a negative slope at all. They have steadily increased to the current value of 11,367,214 total cases. Sixty-one percent of these cases have been recovered to healthy, leaving almost 7 million people still infected.

Global production has slowed to a crawl amidst this pandemic, causing shortages of many products. Among some of the most important shortages exist a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as medical masks, gloves, face shields, sanitizing products, and a few scary shortages of hospital beds, ICU beds, oxygen therapy, ventilators, and ECMO (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation devices used to oxygenate blood of children) devices (Shortages). Using the basic knowledge of supply and demand, these products prices were vastly increased or even sold to the highest bidder. “China made half the world’s mask before the coronavirus emerged there, and it has expanded production nearly 12-fold since then. But it has claimed mask factory output from itself. Purchases and donations also brought China a big chunk of the world’s supply from elsewhere” (Bradsher & Alderman). Figures from China Customs show that some 2.46 billion pieces of PPE had been imported in a month valued at $1 billion. The prices of PPE have risen drastically as the world rushes to get supplies. “Wholesale costs for N95 respirators … have quintupled. Trans-Pacific air freight charges have tripled” (Bradsher). 

Works Cited

Bradsher, Keith. “A Global 'Free-for-All' to Buy and Sell Face Masks Emerges amid Coronavirus Battle.” Chicagotribune.com, Chicago Tribune, 1 Apr. 2020, www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-nw-nyt-coronavirus-face-mask-shortage-20200401-5xms3wfiirb3rewtqc3v5vhe4q-story.html. 

Bradsher, Keith, and Liz Alderman. “The World Needs Masks. China Makes Them, but Has Been Hoarding Them.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 13 Mar. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/03/13/business/masks-china-coronavirus.html.

Canada, Global Affairs. “Focus on Wuhan, China.” Trade Commissioner Service, Government of Canada, 2 Jan. 2020, www.tradecommissioner.gc.ca/china-chine/market-facts-faits-sur-le-marche/96289.aspx?lang=eng. 

Shortages Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic. 6 Dec. 2020, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortages_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic. 

Real or Fake Christmas Tree

Every year 80% of Americans put up a Christmas tree and, roughly, 80% of those trees are fake. If you buy a fake tree, you now have a mass of plastic, but it can be used year after year. Choosing a real tree entails cutting down millions of trees every year for use of decoration. Which brings about the question, which type of Christmas tree is better for the environment?

Fake Christmas trees can be reused year after year, but according to USA Today, Americans still purchase 10 million fake trees each Christmas season. These trees are made from plastic and metal that are not biodegradable. Most of these fake trees are shipped from China, meaning that acquiring them comes with a bigger carbon footprint. Considering the tree is expected to break down within ten years, these fake trees will eventually end up in landfills and be replaced.

About 30 million real trees are sold each year for Christmas. These trees are grown in the United States and do not have the carbon footprint of fake trees. In order to supply 30 million trees every year, tree farms are growing between 350-500 million trees at any given time. As these trees grow, they are taking carbon in and releasing oxygen. And because these are grown on farms, forests are not being cut down to supply Christmas trees. When the holiday season is over, these trees are completely biodegradable.

When compared side by side, real trees are by far better for the environment. With fake trees being the cheaper financial option, how can we encourage families to make the switch to real one? One such option would be to put tariffs on fake trees coming from China. Increasing the price for the consumer will lower the demand. Those tariffs could also be used to fund green initiatives here in the US. 

While its fun to compare the two trees and their impact on the environment, we likely wont ever see policy to influence our Christmas tree purchases. In the grand scheme of things, Christmas trees have a miniscule impact on our environment. These trees 'account for less than 0.1% of the average person's annual carbon footprint.'

-Steven Brown

Sources: 

VERIFY: Is a real or fake Christmas tree better for the environment? | king5.com

Real vs. Fake Christmas Trees: Which Is More Eco-Friendly? (greenmatters.com)

Illegal Tampering on Diesel Emissions

Five years ago Volkswagen got caught installing devices designed to trick emission control monitors.  These so called 'defeat devices' would reduce the vehicles performance during tests to meet emission requirements. During regular driving, they would boost vehicle performance while allowing cars to emit as much as 40 times more pollution than what is allowed under emission standards. Having been forced to recall about 9 million vehicles, in addition to paying a countless number of fines and lawsuits, the Volkswagen sandal ended up costing the company around 30 billion dollars. This punishment will hopefully deter other companies from trying to cheat the system. However, it wont stop people from modifying their own vehicles.  

A new report by the EPA's Office of Civil Enforcement, shows a problem still exists with vehicles today; by way of aftermarket modifications. Marketed legally as a performance enhancement technology, these devices are being modified to cheat emissions and serve as the aforementioned 'defeat devices'. 

Drew Kodjak, the executive director of the International Council on Clean Transportation, who alerted the EPA of these devices, said, 'This is far more alarming and widespread than the Volkswagen scandal. Because these are trucks, the amount of pollution is far, far higher.'

According to the EPA's report, these modifications will allow trucks to release more than 570,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide. That's 10 times more than the illegal Volkswagen vehicles. Even worse, these are more difficult to enforce. The EPA has shut down some manufactures of the diesel-tuner market, but there are a lot of small businesses in play. And again, these devices are not illegal. Only after they are modified do they become illegal. 

As we see in the market, there is a demand for these 'defeat devices'. Making such devices illegal is an attempt by the government to cut off the supply. However, when the demand still exists, black markets are created. Or, in this case, loopholes are exploited to get their devices back on the market as 'diesel tuners'. One possible solution does exist. Emission inspectors could test the tailpipe emissions instead of reading the computer. This would be an expensive change for new technology and for additional time consumed during testing. It's up to the states to decide if the benefits of reducing emissions from these vehicles would outweigh the higher costs involved for improved emissions testing. 

-Steven Brown

Sources:

Volkswagen: The scandal explained - BBC News

Illegal Tampering by Diesel Pickup Owners Is Worsening Pollution, E.P.A. Says

VW Is Said to Cheat on Diesel Emissions; U.S. to Order Big Recall

Pandemic’s Cleaner Air Could Reshape What We Know About the Atmosphere

    Clean air is something most take for granted. We are beginning to see studies that show the increases levels of carbon dioxide and other pollutants can cause certain health risks such as asthma and lung disease. The Clean Air Act is one policy that has helped institute policies that enforce restrictions on the amount of pollutants that enter our atmosphere. COVID has been devastating to the economy and for human health. However, there is a slight silver lining. The COVID shutdowns have allowed scientists to conduct large real time experiments of the amount of pollution that humans contribute. 

Many cities around the world have seen the effects of increased pollution. A gray haze that lingers over the cities makes it very evident that the vehicles and factories below may be the culprit. It’s been very difficult to prove exactly how much is being contributed through commuting and other sources of pollution coming from civilization. The shutdowns enacted during this global pandemic have allowed scientists to closely examine the reductions in pollutants. They are then able to compare these reductions and compare them with estimates of reduced travel in major cities. One way they do this is by attaching sensors to small planes and flying over major metropolitan areas along the east coast. They have found a reduction in pollution levels that hasn’t been seen in decades. 

These findings give fuel to the fire for arguments for increasing restrictions that enforce stricter pollution control measures. Many scientists agree that the levels of carbon dioxide being contributed on a daily basis is cause for concern. The levels of pollution that we are seeing today may be what environmental groups are hoping for. This low level of pollution comes with a severe price in loss of production. We have seen huge hits to the economy during the pandemic caused by these lockdowns. The government has been trying to keep the economy running by throwing trillions of dollars into the economy. This is a temporary solution to the problem. 

Maybe once we see a vaccine, we will start to see our cities return back to normal along with the pollution levels that come with it. If government officials wish to keep the low levels of pollution that we saw, we could expect to see more severe restrictions on pollution control. This may hinder the economy until the technology and infrastructure is in place to handle the heightened goals of a greener planet.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/climate/coronavirus-clean-air.html