Summative post response

Sal - A succinct and clearly stated response - I am looking forward to reading your paper.

Summative Blog Entry #19

About 5 months ago, I posted my first response into my blog on Alternative Energy. It was a five paragraph essay explaining the reasons that I thought it was a good idea to research Alternative Energy as my topic. Now, I'm writing response looking back on my blog, and I'm glad I picked this topic. My thesis has changed over the months, but its final form is: Alternative Energy is essential for our planets future because it reduces the amount of carbon emissions, and solar and wind power are the most effective forms of Alternative Energy.

When I started writing my blog, I believed that the further development of Alternative Energy was essential in securing our planets future, and while that hasn't changed, my understanding of the subject of the subject has deepened. One source that affected my views was the response I did on DIY solar panels. They allow anyone with a small amount of money to buy a solar panel which will save you money and lower your carbon footprint. The slight problem? You receive a kit with a guide, but you have to build your own solar panel. This article made me realize that the one thing standing in the way of solar panels being universally owned was their very high cost.

Wind power, the other form of renewable energy I focused on, has some very important pros and cons I discovered in an article about NIMBY, standing for Not in My Backyard. This article stated that people just didn't want towering metal structures in their view for a variety of ridiculous reasons. Even people who want to build wind turbines were solidly against people building them within view of their property. Still, wind power really has no non-aesthetic drawbacks, with zero emissions and reasonably efficient transfer to electricity.

After reviewing my blog it appears like I have said much of the same thing over the five month period. This is because every single article, barring one, has only reinforced my idea that Alternative Energy is the future, and necessary in the preservation of a recognizable Earth.

Response #18 to my Interview with Jennifer Puser

Upon reading my interview, you will probably notice that her answers are almost jumbled, and not fluidly written. This is because I had no way of recording her, so instead I put down her main points instead of direct quotes. The reason I cut down the number of questions is because the four I cut out were simply bad questions that I could get an answer to just off of the internet. Now onto my response: I accomplished everything I was looking for. Jennifer Puser is, I'm assuming, a democrat, or she at least has liberal tendencies because she believes it is the governments responsibility to encourage the development of Alternative Energy, and mentioned that Maine was a leader in Alternative Energy in new England. One thing I found interesting was that she looks at geothermal energy, something which I haven't looked since the single blog entry I did on it, a competitive form of renewable energy.

(#17) Interview Questions For Jennifer Puser, who works in the state government.

- Why or why not do you support Alternative energy development?

The reasons that the state government support renewable energy are to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, to help the economy with jobs, and to reduce the cost of energy around the board.

- What do you think the future holds for Alternative energy in Maine?

I think it is very bright. There is a lot of stuff going on right now. We are in a transition from old fossil fuels to alternative energy. Last week a Portland based company just tested the first tidal based power source. We are part of the New England energy grid. Right now in Maine there is a transition to offshore wind power. Maine is pushing the envelope on renewable energy.

- Do you see global warming as a problem?

Global warming is definitely a problem. The state of Maine has agreed with the rest of new England to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Maine was the first state in the country to implement a climate bill.

-Which type of Alternative Energy is the most realistic and efficient for Maine?

Its going to be be some of all of this. In the past in Maine, for example, 80 percent of homes and business used heating oil. I think we are going to see a little bit of all the sources I mentioned. (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro.)

- Economically, what is the potential for Alternative Energy in Maine?

I think economically wind power right now is competitive. Coal,oil ad fossil fuels all have subsidies. Solar energy is not as competitive on a large scale. Geothermal is a good application for a larger building or commercial facility. Solar is expensive up front, but pays for itself. When oil prices rise, renewable energy becomes more viable.

- What role should the Government play in encouraging Alternative Energy development?

We think that the federal gov. should play a leadership role, as well as the state government. A lot of states and municipalities were taking a leading role rather than the federal government before the Obama administration.

Response #16 to "A Dozen Bad Things About Alternative Energy"

The point of this article is that alternative energy, while important, is definetly not the number one priority. It gives a list of twelve things which cost less than developing alternative energy, and give results faster. (Some of them.) The majority rely on a government mandate, which I found out was essentially an order, which would be supported by taxpayers money. Some of them make sense, such as teaching energy education in schools. This makes sense because when you teach about energy you not only encourage using it efficient, but at the same time you also teach about math and science. Another one is to mandate residential energy efficiency, like insulated doors,CFL light bulbs and more efficient attic fans. This article makes the point that common sense trumps expensive new ways of getting energy, with the problem with the article being the fact that it only states ways to become more efficient, not to actually produce more energy.

Notes on "A Dozen Bad Things About Alternative Energy"

Is alternative energy priority #1? No.

One of the reasons so much attention is on alternative energy right now is that it is new, exciting.

"So here are some really boring, uncool steps the government and individuals can take to make a significant difference that will save money, energy, and the environment … quicker than just about anything else."

1. Mandate residential energy efficiency

2. Mandate highly efficient water heaters

3. Mandate CFL light bulbs

4. Mandate recycling of aluminum cans

5. Mandate displays of MPG usage

6. Mandate capture of rain water from gutters

7. Mandate extreme energy efficiency on new construction

8. Incentivize carpooling, virtual conferencing

9. Mandate meters that show energy usage for appliances

10. Mandate purchase of hybrid public transportation

11. Eat less meat

12. Educate about energy in school

Response #15 to An Overview of DIY (Do It Yourself) Solar Panels"

As stated in my notes, solar power is easily the most available energy resource available. This is important, but the positive effects are diminished by the fact that solar panels are very expensive, or at least professionals charge a lot for the installation of them. DIY, which stands for do it yourself, is a term applied to many things, and one of those is home built solar panels. There are a number of online guides which show you how to make your own for hundreds of dollars less. They might not look pretty, and they don't produce enough energy to provide power for a big house like a mansion, but then again they are designed for accessibility by the middle. Right now price is the single reason why solar power is not much more widespread, and the DIY attitude is what is needed to significantly deter global warming.

Notes on "An Overview of DIY (Do It Yourself) Solar Panels"

Solar power is the most available energy resource in the world.

The cost of solar panels is what turns many people away from purchasing them.

A cheap, affordable solar panel built by professionals is not on the market yet.

DIY (do it yourself) feels it has the answer. 7 reasons (states the article) why you should go DIY:

"1. You save hundreds of dollars every time you get your electricity bill.

2. This is great for our environment.

3. You will be able to spend your savings on more important things

4. Knowing that you are doing your part to conserve our planet feels great.

5. When you install your renewable energy system in your premises you will increase the value of your premises by thousands.

6. Knowing how to create solar energy panels will give you the freedom to go fully off grid. On the other hand you can stay connected and get paid by the electric company when your meter runs backwards.

7. Installation costs will continue to fall as the number of experienced installers and successful installations increases."

Comments from relative:

Sal Azzaretti
"Alternative Energy"
blog shared with Kate Pennington (mother)
blog shared on Feb. 22
Comments from Kate: Sal very clearly explained to me the format of the blog (notes, articles, color coding, and responses). I have read other blogs on line, and this one compared favorably. It was nice to have the option to read the notes summarizing key points of each article rather than having to read through the whole thing myself. Knowing the main points helped me understand Sal's responses.

Response #14 to "Conference gets Wind of Green Energy Job Trend in Maine,"

Green energy is an expanding market most everywhere in America as of now, and in Maine this is especially evident in the job trends. The demand for these jobs come in part from the richness in Maine's potential for alternative energy. Maine's coast has a potential to produce 149 gigawatt of clean wind power from projects involving the offshore farming of wind energy. Initial investment is needed however, to get this project off the ground. Some of the advantages of offshore wind power are the fact that it is offshore means that the turbines aren't unsightly, and don't bring up the tried arguments of NIMBY. Another advantage is that the wind is constantly blowing over the sea. So this project would create jobs, produce a ton of clean energy, and have little if any negative impact on the environment.

Notes on "Conference gets Wind of Green Energy job Trend in Maine"

At the STEM conference,which stands for science, technology,engineering and mathematics, both Maine's Gov. John Baldacci and researchers stressed the potential of offshore wind facilities in Maine.

It is estimated that Maine has offshore potential like that of roughly 149 nuclear power plants.

Maine has high rates of oil imports.

Investing in offshore development for wind technology could potentially create 15,000 jobs.

Baldacci stated that education that is salient to science is essential to securing Maine's economic future.

He will meet with President Obama sometime next week (article was written about one week ago, so the meeting has already occurred.)

If investment is made into offshore wind projects,it will demand that jobs be created. The jobs themselves will vary greatly, from construction to engineering and architecture, and also computer based jobs.

Baldacci stated "If you give a Mainer a level playing field, these people can compete with anyone.

Response #13 to "Solar Energy in Oklahoma Could Have Hot Future"

Oklahoma is a state that is particularly well adapted to solar panel use. This is in part because of its geographical location, and also partly because it is very well off economically. Solar panels are expensive, and a large scale use of them would require support from the government. In the comments section below the article there were some comments that had a great idea. It was to mount solar panels on buildings, on the top of them and such. One of the comments also said that large scale solar farms create negative side effects for the wildlife, and that is true, something I had not thought about before. However, if the solar panels were built on the flat tops of buildings in a city, or on the roofs of houses, you could cover an immense amount of ground without ever building on the ground. The costs might be steep, but as this technology gets used more and the demand grows, both the affordability and efficiency will rise.

State energy rivalry

Sal - Enjoyable reading - I think you are right about state rivalries - and your articles on PA and OH give two examples of what states are doing energy-wise. What about Maine? The offshore wind farms and the grant that UMO just received should boost our alternative energy leadership. And we are developing more land-based wind farms; Mars Hill was just the beginning. How about tidal energy? Interesting, too, that with the summit failure, the US does need to set an example. Is state rivalry something that can be used to accelerate the rate at which we move ahead to lead the world?

Notes on "Solar Energy in Oklahoma Could Have Hot Future"

Oklahoma is one of the states in America with the highest potential to produce solar energy, along with wind power.
Engineer Albert Janco sees alternative energy sources as a way to attain energy independence.
The technology used to derive electricity from the suns rays is very expensive, but the sun's rays itself is free.
Companies in Oklahoma have expressed a desire to build large scale solar farms in the state.
The Commerce Secretary Natalie Shirley feels solar energy is an important part of Oklahoma's future.
A report from the Oklahoma wind power initiative states "Storage devices such as large fuel cells or batteries are not very efficient or cheap."
At this point it takes about 20 years to offset the cost of installing a solar panel.

Response #12 to "Strickland: $40M investment for alternative energy"

This article is significant because it shows that the state government of Ohio is seriously interested in developing its alternative energy sector. This is important for three reasons. The first being that if the state of Ohio invests in developing its alternative energy it will positively affect the climate. The second is that it will boosts Ohio's economy, maybe encouraging more investing into alternative energy. The third is the most significant. I look at the states that make up the US as having a sort of rivalry apparent in many things, especially evident in sports, so if one state starts to leave another behind in some regard including technologically or economically, I believe that will be a very strong reason for other states to invest in their own alternative energy sectors. And a country-wide investment into alternative is part of what is needed to stop or slow carbon emissions coming from our country. The world has shown it does not want a universal agreement on carbon emission reductions, so our country must become an example.

Notes on "Strickland: $40M investment for alternative energy"

The governor of Ohio, Ted Strickland, has stated the state will invest 40 million into alternative energy programs.

The point of this investment is to "further Ohio's green technology development."

In addition to the 40 million, there are other more modest programs that are being created to aid job creation and business growth.

The 40 million would be allocated to solar, wind and fuel cell development.

A quote of Ted Strickland's, "There will come a day when Ohio will be the undisputed home of advanced energy. A day when we cast off those two tired words that have been used to put us down: 'Rust Belt;' Because that's not who we are."

Strickland also supports a tax decrease for energy generation.

There was recently a new partnership between the Ohioan universities and Proctor & Gamble that is based on getting the products developed by the universities out faster to the market.

Response #11 to "Forum on State Money for Alternative Energy Draws More Than 100 to HACC"

This article is significant because of what it symbolizes. Around America, people and local governments and business are beginning to delve into the large amounts of money set aside by the stimulus package for alternative energy. Everyday people are finally realizing how important alternative energy is to both America's economy and the worlds climate. As I mentioned in a previous post, when there is money to be made, people will pay attention, and because there is now support pouring in from the government I think people will feel safer about investing into the alternative energy sector. This forum shows that local communities are beginning to become interested in the prospects that alternative energy offers. This kind of community driven effort to get alternative energy more widespread is exactly what is needed for the world to tackle the problem of climate change.

Notes on "Forum on State Money for Alternative Energy Draws More Than 100 to HACC"

More than 100 people showed up for a forum on how Pennsylvanians, from small business owners to local governments, can draw a from a large pool of money the state has set aside for alternative energy ventures.

Both grants and loans are available to people who apply.

The money will go to people who want to install geothermal and solar, create and upgrade buildings to be more conservative and efficient with energy.

The CFA which handles part of the stimulus package which was sent to Pennsylvania supports increasing reliance on alternative energies.

The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority has around 100 million dollars available for rebates if money is invested into alternative energy.

The audience of the forum consisted of contractors, installers, architects, engineers, developers, and local government members.

Response #10 to "Making Mars the New Earth."

When I chose this article, I chose it for two specific reasons. One, I enjoy reading about ideas like this, to me its very interesting. The other reason is that terraforming a planet like Mars using the same methods that is causing irreparable damage to our own planet could teach us things in the long run. oh, and also overpopulation? Solved by a terraformed Mars. NASA is out of the picture however. It simply doesn't have the funds. A global initiative would be needed in order to make this idea a reality. And while this blog post isn't strictly about alternative energy, it is very important in its own regard in that it is about the effects of climate change. If there is a possibility that Mars could be transformed from a barren planet to a green one, think about how our green planet could be transformed to a blue one.

Notes on "Making Mars the New Earth."

The human race is capable of terraforming Mars.
This would be done the exact same way Earth is being warmed up: carbon emissions.
Mars right now is incredibly cold, with an average temperature -76 degrees F.
There would be multiple steps to the process of terraforming Mars.
1. Small missions add habitation modules to Mars surface.
2. An atmosphere would be created by pumping greenhouse gases into Mars, and later the carbon dioxide frozen on the poles of Mars would melt, releasing even more and heating the planet faster.
3. Rain would begin falling, and algae and lichen would begin to flourish.
4. Flowering plants could be introduced after organic soil was created.
5. 300 years later, Mars would be inhabitable. Overall this is roughly over a period of 1,000 years.
Human colonists could seed the red rock with multiple ecosystems, for instance start with bacteria and lichens and then after 1,000 years it might be able to support redwoods.
NASA does not have the funds to undertake this venture.
Mars has lower gravity, lower temperatures, and is significantly smaller.

Response #9 to "Experimental Power Plant Takes the CO2 Out"

This article is significant because coal is where the majority of the United States' electricity is acquired. 51 percent of our countries electricity is crested from coal powered plants, and about 60 percent of all of our countries carbon emissions are from the coal power plants. If we switched completely from coal as our major source of power then we could dramatically decrease our countries carbon footprint, but that's not realistic. Instead, we can reduce the effect that the existing plants have on the environment. At this point, the technology is not proven, so we should not rely solely on it. I still believe wind and solar are the way of the future. This technology however, is a step in the right direction.

Notes on "Experimental Power Plant Takes the CO2 Out."

Coal is one of the leading sources of carbon emissions in the United States.
Coal currently generates about 51 percent of the United States electricity.
The Obama Administration has shown support for the power plant that will be using "FutureGen" which is a technology in which roughly 60 percent of the carbon emissions from the production of coal is put deep underground.
FutureGen is scheduled to be up and running by 2014.
The CO2 gases are siphoned until they're nearly a liquid and pumped deep into sandstone where the gas will be trapped and not go up into the atmosphere.
FutureGen has been criticized by both the right and the left.
Left: Believe America should lessen its dependence on coal technology instead of just making it less harmful to the environment.
Right: Disapprove of spending money on an unproven technology.
Some ways to stash carbon:
1. Capture it at the source.
2. Grab it with artificial trees.
3. Bury it under the sea.
4. Turn it into charcoal.
5. Turn it into rock.