Wednesday, July 10, 2013
class reflection
Both policy articles stressed the importance of domestic energy production, along with having a diverse energy portfolio. In the US, the primary energy source (85%) is fossil fuels, and though there are remnants of a developing renewable portfolio, it isn't comparable to the amount of fossil fuels due to stay in use. Brazil, on the other hand, relies heavily on renewable energy, such as their biofuels and hydroelectric plants, the trouble with this is the environmental stress. Biofuel growth requires continued deforestation to meet future energy demands, not to mention the nutrient depletion within the soils caused by monocultural planting methods. Hydroelectric plants are incredibly disruptive, both socially and environmentally, AND when you account for the decreased generation capacity during the dry season, they can be economically disruptive as well, as they lead to black out....so they key will be to develop a diverse renewable portfolio, to scale down the magnitude of individual resources, and create a mosaic of renewables
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I completely agree with your stance on building a diverse energy portfolio, as one renewable fuel source cannot sustain our ever-growing population. Although biofuel and hydroelectric plants do somewhat harm the environment, I believe that they are less harmful than using fossil fuels. Therefore, we should heavily invest in these types of renewables in the near future.
ReplyDeleteWord. I don't know that much about the environmental effect of hydroelectric in Brazil, but compared to the global problem of the skyrocketing levels of CO2, I agree that it can't be nearly as harmful as burning fossil fuels. Wind and hydroelectric seem to be the best for Brazil currently, with other sources to help provide stability in the event of a drought like they had in 2001. In the long term, photovoltaic as well.
ReplyDelete