Global Breaking News - Monday, April 29, 2024
   |
[Debate/토론] (PC-002) Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels?
최고관리자 | 17-03-23 23:34
Whether alternative energy sources such as biofuels, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, or nuclear energy can meet energy demands better than finite fossil fuels such as oil and coal remains hotly debated.
Proponents of alternative energy argue that fossil fuels are inefficient, unsustainable, environmentally destructive, and the primary contributor to global climate change. They say renewable energies are a viable and immediately needed alternative to fossil fuel use that could boost the US economy and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.
Opponents contend that many technological hurdles have to be overcome before alternative energy can replace even a small portion of the power provided by fossil fuels. They say that fossil fuels will last hundreds of years longer, be made increasingly efficient, remain the most economical choice, and that reliance on inefficient alternative energies will hurt the economy.
Pros
1. "Despoiling nature to get at the tiny trickle of oil we have left won't make any significant difference in what we pay at the pump - not now and not ever. And it won't make our country any less dependent on foreign fuel. Our thirst for oil is bad for national security, bad for our economy and bad for the environment…
The Bush administration's own Energy Department says that lifting the ban on offshore drilling would have a marginal impact on oil supplies and an 'insignificant' impact on prices. Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be similarly futile, shaving - at the very most - 4 cents off a gallon of gas by 2026...
America needs to say no to pumping up Big Oil's profits and yes to forging a new clean energy economy."
2. "Citizens and community members everywhere are seeking smart solutions to our two biggest problems - the economic downturn and the ecological collapse.
The nation is finally realizing that the solutions to these twin crises are linked. That is because nearly everything that is good for the environment - and practically everything that is good in the fight against global warming - is a job.
Solar panels don't install themselves. Wind turbines don't manufacture themselves. Homes and buildings don't retrofit or weatherize themselves. In our industrial society, trees don't even PLANT themselves, anymore. Real people must do all of that work...
A well thought out shift to a clean energy economy offers more work, more wealth and better health to disadvantaged communities than does any plausible, business-as-usual scenario...
In a time of economic peril, let us never forget that everything that is required to make America's economy cleaner, greener and more resilient is a career pathway for someone. Or a business contract. Or an entrepreneurial opportunity. We can power America through this recession by repowering America with clean energy. We can create millions of jobs that will make our people wealthier and the Earth healthier. Let us begin."
3. "The legislation I am signing today [Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, HR 6] will address our vulnerabilities and our dependence in two important ways. First, it will increase the supply of alternative fuel sources. I proposed an alternative fuel standard earlier this year. This standard would require fuel producers to include a certain amount of alternative fuels in their products. This standard would create new markets for foreign products used to produce these fuels. This standard would increase our energy security by making us less vulnerable to instability--to the instability of oil prices on the world market.
The bill I sign today takes a significant step because it will require fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. This is nearly a fivefold increase over current levels. It will help us diversify our energy supplies and reduce our dependence on oil."
4. "The subsidies in place allow the [alternative energy] industry to grow and technologies to be developed and mature and drive costs down...
Alternative energy is most developed in countries where government subsidies have been in place for some time. Germany put in place strong incentives in the early part of this decade to encourage demand for solar modules, to encourage installations of wind farms and to support the biofuels industry. Companies in countries with a more progressive alternative energy policy framework therefore developed technology and intellectual property at an earlier state. Other European countries such as Denmark, Spain and Portugal also embraced alternative energy therefore companies tend to be more mature in Europe. However the potential for growth in the U.S. is greater, and once a longer term framework has been put in place, we would expect the U.S. to catch up fast."
Cons
1. "It is estimated that there is enough oil and natural gas offshore and in non-wilderness and non-park lands in the United States - but currently ruled off-limits for production by the federal government - to fuel 50 million cars and heat nearly 100 million homes for the next 25 years...
If Congress were to expand the areas available for active exploration, we could make more domestic energy available to Americans in the future, while sending a strong positive supply signal to markets today, potentially putting downward pressure on prices. It would also strengthen U.S. energy security by further diversifying Americans’ energy portfolio, and therefore mitigating the impact of a disruption in any one producing region of the world."
2. "Hard times stir our appetites for easy answers, but those are too often deceptive and dangerous. The Green Recovery plan is a prime example--its proponents would have us believe that pouring taxpayer money into renewable energy like solar and wind would create an estimated 5 million new jobs, end our reliance on imported oil and give us clean air.
As welcome as those results would be, they're based on the illusion that renewable fuels are an energy panacea and that the market is ignoring an easy answer that wise politicians can clearly see. But the facts just don't support this. Yes, renewable fuels will constitute a part of our energy mix in the future, but they represent only a tiny fraction of our energy needs and won't lead us out of the economic and environmental wilderness...
Taking into account the EIA's [US Energy Information Agency] projected increases in electricity demand, the renewable sector would need to grow 19% per year for 22 years consecutively to meet U.S. demand by the year 2030. Clearly, these targets are overly ambitious and impractical...
The government cannot create wealth or jobs; all it can do is take from Peter to pay Paul, opening up a job in 'green industry A' by eliminating one in 'fossil fuel industry B.'"
3. "'Energy independence' is a favored placebo - a rarely defined goal trotted out for energy crises but not achieved...
There is now no liquid fuel that can largely replace oil for transportation. We are stuck because of the scale of the industry and - despite criticism - oil's efficiency. A gallon of gas, refined from African oil, is cheaper than a gallon of Maine sparkling water. Political alternatives like corn-based ethanol have required huge subsidies and convulsed food markets but produced only 430,000 barrels per day in 2007 - 2 percent of U.S. oil consumption...
Politicians pose with gimmicks like hydrogen cars, but they will have little near-term impact. Breakthrough technologies, such as cellulosic ethanol, are theoretically attractive - but don't exist."
4. "Several recent bills would either subsidize or mandate alternative fuels and/or vehicles. However, the 30-plus-year history of federal attempts to encourage such alternatives includes numerous failures and few, if any, successes...
After all these years, Washington has failed to grasp the serious economic and technological shortcomings of these energy alternatives, which is why they needed special treatment in the first place. Federal efforts to pick winners and losers among energy sources-and to lavish mandates and subsidies on the perceived winners-have a dismal track record relative to allowing market forces to decide the direction of energy innovation."
|
|