The Dark Side of Sustainable Energy
It is almost impossible to escape technology in the modern-day age. The innovation in technology which has occurred over the past few centuries has significantly altered the way we live our lives. With this progress, however, came discussions about how the energy used to power this technology could be made more sustainable. Though “green energy” like solar power has taken the media by storm, there is a dark side many do not know of that can harm our planet almost as much as fossil fuels do. Therefore, it is crucial for companies and individuals to be aware of the effect these technologies have upon the planet and devise new ways to make them more sustainable to improve the world’s overall ecological condition.
It is true that these alternative sources of energy have many advantages which may help the planet rid itself of fossil fuel-based energy. As these sources “use sources straight from the environment,” it is highly unlikely that we will run out of these renewable sources. Moreover, the lower maintenance requirements decrease the cost and time required for upkeep. This can be seen in the wind and solar energy alternatives, as “[they] have few or no moving parts and don’t rely on flammable, combustible fuel sources.” These environmental benefits can reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowing for cleaner air. This benefit improves the overall health of the planet’s inhabitants, reducing the possibility of “respiratory and cardiac health issues.”
While renewable energy may seem like a dream come true, there are a multitude of hidden disadvantages which restrict its widespread use. While the technologies may be cost-effective in the long run, they require much more investment initially to maintain. Even though governments are trying to rectify this by utilizing “financial incentives, such as tax credits and rebates,” these methods of fund collection are rudimentary at best, inhibiting further progress. Furthermore, renewable technology has not progressed to the point where it can store as much energy as fossil fuels, as the volatile nature of the planet’s climate and landscapes may make the collection of these sources intermittent, causing a geographical limit on where this energy can be set up. “For example, a large farm with open space may be a great place for a residential wind turbine or a solar energy system, while a townhome in a city… wouldn’t be able to reap the benefits.” As a result, it is nearly impossible to develop this renewable technology without using carbon-based sources because producing technology like solar panels in factories, and shipping them out to installation in various places in the country can “create a carbon footprint since they’re usually produced in factories that are powered by fossil fuels.”
The difference between renewable and sustainable energy is seldom fully talked about. The main difference is that renewable energy is produced from resources that already exist and can replenish themselves with time. A well-known example of such an energy source is biomass which is energy from once living organisms. For example, wood, crops, and animal waste can all be considered biomass.. This ability to renew the primary energy source at a rate similar to which it is used up is renewable energy’s defining characteristic. On the other hand, sustainable energy comes from resources that are not only replenishable but able to “maintain current operations without jeopardizing the energy needs or climate of future generations.” Many types of green energy, such as tidal power and solar power are both renewable and sustainable as they are naturally occurring without having to be replenished. However, due to their severe dependency on location and climate, their true efficiency lies in the ability for this energy to be generated, collected, and stored. Therefore, these natural geographical challenges can end up posing a challenge to the widespread use of sustainable energy.
The utilization of green energy has been especially widespread due to its common media exposure, often excluding the detrimental effects. In popular culture, companies such as Tesla have been super successful in implementing their self-driving electric cars. However, their true environmental impacts are seldom mentioned. While it is true that these vehicles may not require gas, the electricity they use to run their engines comes from carbon-burning power stations. Upon taking this into account, according to an environmental economist, Virginia McConnel, “all-electrics don’t even look that much better than a traditional vehicle in terms of greenhouse gases.” Tesla representatives insist that their cars can have almost “four times lower CO2 per mile” than gas-powered cars, putting the bar in favor of electric vehicles. However, when analyzing the statistics behind the mileage capabilities of the Model S, the Department of Energy revealed that “it takes as much energy to produce a gallon of gasoline as a Model S consumes in 20 miles of driving.” This takes away from the true sustainability of such technologies, as they are still heavily dependent on carbon. To build such vehicles, materials must be sourced from international “environmentally destructive mines,” due to the rarity of the metals, which only “exist in tiny quantities and inconvenient places,” meaning a lot of environmental destruction occurs to obtain materials. At the Jiangxi rare earth mine in China, “those rare earth metals amounted to 0.2 percent of what gets pulled out of the ground.” The rest of the contaminated waste is dumped back into the ground, producing even more hidden emissions. From coal furnaces, to rock crushing equipment that has incredibly high energy bills, the number of carbon emissions spewed into the atmosphere is not environmentally cautious at all. At the end of the day, the effect isn’t a greener car, but a shifting of the responsibility for pollution. Though EVs may be an improvement from gasoline-powered cars, they are far from sustainable. Therefore, it is crucial for consumers and investors to truly understand the detriments of sourcing the materials that “enable their green choices.”
Fortunately, our ability to think outside the box, will make us realize that by changing our use of surplus energy, “a piece of the puzzle” will be solved quite easily. Instead of focusing on the aspects we cannot currently change with our technology, humans instead should focus on saving the parts of the planet which are possible. As McDaniel and Borton wrote, “A bulldozer running on solar-generated hydrogen or fossil fuel accomplishes the same thing.” Both allow us to decimate the Amazon rainforest.” At the end of the day, our footprint on this planet will still be evident regardless of the energy we have access to. The main goal is to divert the surplus energy we have into supporting the health of the planet. If this cycle of excessive consumption is broken, the surplus energy we do have can be diverted into innovating better solutions for sustainable energy in the future instead of using it to further destroy our homes.
While green energy has been a significant step in the right direction, there is still a ways to go to ensure that humanity’s overall choices will offset the detrimental ecological effects, such as carbon emissions, while simultaneously promoting funding and innovation in this sector of science. It is only with this mindset change that true improvement can be made for future generations to enjoy Earth just like we do.