Group 3: Wedge 10: Wind turbines are too expensive compared to the alternative forms of energy available. Wedge 11: Like wind power, solar power is also more expensive and not as easily accessible as electricity. Wedge 9: There is an accumulation of nuclear waste, whereas coal is diffused into the air. Wedge 14: Ending deforestation is nearly impossible, because people need wood for construction purposes and paper for example. Wedge 3: Cutting the electricity in home, offices, and stores would cut nationwide productivity. Wedge 13: Driving cars off of ethanol uses water consumption, produces sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Wedge 6: installing CCS at 800 large coal fire power plants will drastically change the temperature of the environment, capturing 90% of the CO2 emissions produced by the fossil fuels from electricity and industrial productions from entering into the atmosphere. This will only cool the environment, impacting the agriculture and the people around. We need fossil fuels to warm the planet/ atmosphere around us, but too much warming will harm the environment. However, cooling the environment will take away some of the benefits of warming the plant and will only create deficits.
The seven wedges we think should be implemented are 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, 4, and 2. Stopping deforestation destroys a lot of jobs, and forces us to find alternate wood products. Driving two billion cars on ethanol eliminates 1/6th of valuable cropland. Some parts of the world are already struggling to find food and with an increasing population more food problems could be created. If we increase solar and wind power some jobs could be lost in the coal industry. Along with this, our current factory structures revolve around coal. This could be an expensive change for companies to make. Installing CCS technologies at coal plants would be extremely expensive. Along with this, issues could arise as a result of the large quantities of carbon being injected into the ground. An attempt to increase efficiency at coal power plants would be an expensive task. It could also affect jobs and how the plant operates, leading to resistance. Lastly, if we attempt to cut our driving miles in half, it would force major lifestyle and infrastructure changes upon us. We would need to update our road systems and increase carpooling/public transportation methods. The benefits of implementing these concepts would be fantastic for the environment. However, in order to make it a reality, people would need to be willing to pay up for it and accept some lifestyle changes.
1. Stop all deforestation- a. People need wood to build things b. How do you enforce this? c. Expensive to regulate and enforce 2. Drive two billion cars on ethanol- a. Not a good enough energy return b. Raises food prices c. Concern about damage to the environment from growing excess corn d. Requires government subsidies in order to be competitive e. expensive 3. Add twice today’s nuclear output to displace coal- a. Spent nuclear rods must be stored somewhere b. Obvious health risks if something goes wrong c. Very expensive 4. Cut electricity in homes, offices, and stores by 25%- a. Heavily slows productivity b. Forced to lose certain amenities that use lots of energy such as A/C and heat c. How is this enforced? Do you turn off electricity at some points of the day? 5. Increase solar power 700-fold- a. Solar power technology is not capturing enough energy to be credibly useful b. What happens on a cloudy day? What happens in places where it rains a lot? c. Where are you going to put all of these solar panels? d. Expensive 6. Replace 400 coal fire plants with natural gas- a. Natural gas also releases carbon emissions b. Incredibly high upfront costs to change the capabilities of the plants c. Increased fracking. 7. Drive 2 billion cars a year 5,000 miles a year instead of 10,000 miles a year a. How do you limit how many miles a person can drive? b. Limits peoples’ ability to travel, see their families, and go to work. c. You will have to supply cheap and convenient public transportation
We chose to cut electricity use in homes, offices, stores by 25 percent, increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal, increase wind power 80-fold to make hydrogen for cars, drive two billion cars on ethanol using one sixth of world cropland, drive two billion cars not 10,000 but 5,000 miles a year, and to stop all deforestation.
In order to cut electricity use in homes, offices, and stores by 25 percent, people have to be able to afford the initial cost of purchasing new devices, such as environmentally efficient washing and drying machines. The problem with increasing solar power to displace coal is that it is extremely expensive, and it can also be challenging to find a place to build the device. The same goes for wind power as well. Additionally wind power poses a huge problem for many bird populations. The issue with driving two billion cars is that it takes up too much land, and this space could be used for agricultural purposes instead. Lastly, it would be incredibly challenging to stop all deforestation because people could no longer use any wood products.
Group 5: 1. Wedge 1: Increase fuel economy of two billion cars from 30-60 mpg -Bad for gas companies and car dealerships because they would be making less of a profit 2. Wedge 4: Raise fuel efficiency at 1600 large coal fired plants from 40 to 60 percent -They could take the same amount of fuel out, still depleting resources. 3. Wedge 3: Cut electricity use in homes. offices, and stores by 25% -Business that need more energy to run efficiently would be cut and the Western world would have to get used to a different lifestyle. 4. Wedge 9: Add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal - Another nuclear melt down, unsafe areas if handled wrong 5. Wedge 11: Increase solar power by 700 fold to displace coal - Cloudy days and snow diminish the amount of energy something can take in 6. Wedge 10: Increase wind power by 40 fold to displace coal -If there is no wind, then less power is created 7. Wedge 7: Install CCS at coal plants that produce hydrogen for 1.5 billion vehicles -Hydrogen is volatile, so if it is mishandled then it could be dangerous
Natural gas is often seen as a cleaner alternative to coal. However, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide. Natural gas is also made of methane which compared to carbon dioxide, is a much more potent greenhouse gas. If evaluating the benefits of a natural gas plant against a poorly operating coal powered plant, then the benefits of natural gas make it look like an outstanding choice. However, if comparing a natural gas powered plant to a relatively clean coal powered plant, there are not as many benefits. Natural gas still emits carbon dioxide and contains methane so it would be better if yet another alternative energy was used. An alternative that has no carbon dioxide emissions would be a better choice.
Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of trapping carbon dioxide that is produced by burning fossil fuels. A negative impact of installing CCS at 800 large coal powered plants is that those plants would still be running on coal and producing carbon dioxide. While the capturing the carbon dioxide does help to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that gets into the atmosphere, only about 90% of CO2 is captured so CO2 is still being added to the atmosphere. It would be better if no CO2 was being pumped into the atmosphere.
Add twice today’s nuclear output to displace coal. The problem with nuclear is that it’s considered a nonrenewable energy source that produces radioactive waste. Furthermore, with twice the amount of nuclear power plants there is double the chance for a Fukushima disaster to happen.
Increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal Not only is solar energy very expensive to install, it also cost a lot of money to store the energy. Furthermore, the solar panels require a large amount of space that would be most beneficial for the solar intake, which would also solely be intermittent since there is not constant sunshine anywhere.
Drive cars on ethanol The citizens of the world already use most all of the crop land for consuming leaving little to no crop land or food left for cars to consume particularly one six of the land. Furthermore, the process of creating ethanol releases greenhouse gases and essentially cancels out the advantages that potentially could be created by running our cars on ethanol.
Fuel Efficiency in Cars. In terms of solely increasing the fuel economy of cars, there are several negative outcomes that can occur. The first and perhaps most prevalent, is that in order to meet the more stringent fuel standards that the government is placing, we have automakers lying about their emissions to create fuel efficient vehicles with high mpg, as seen in the Volkswagen TDI clean diesel scandal. The other possible negative outcome is that we produce large amounts of hybrid, alternative fuel, and electric vehicles and fail to build the infrastructure that is needed to support the driving of these cars on a day to day basis.
Wind Power. While wind powered turbines are a generally reliable source of clean green energy, the negative outcomes with them are the huge amounts of space that they require to install. In order to efficiently produce wind energy, there must be large swaths of clear open land to function in an appropriate manner. In order for this to occur, we may change habitats and landscapes, which affect runoff and the environment that the animals surrounding these wind farms currently live in. In essence, the large amount of land that would have to be developed for these turbines to work could have to high of an opportunity cost.
Group 3:
ReplyDeleteWedge 10: Wind turbines are too expensive compared to the alternative forms of energy available.
Wedge 11: Like wind power, solar power is also more expensive and not as easily accessible as electricity.
Wedge 9: There is an accumulation of nuclear waste, whereas coal is diffused into the air.
Wedge 14: Ending deforestation is nearly impossible, because people need wood for construction purposes and paper for example.
Wedge 3: Cutting the electricity in home, offices, and stores would cut nationwide productivity.
Wedge 13: Driving cars off of ethanol uses water consumption, produces sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide.
Wedge 6: installing CCS at 800 large coal fire power plants will drastically change the temperature of the environment, capturing 90% of the CO2 emissions produced by the fossil fuels from electricity and industrial productions from entering into the atmosphere. This will only cool the environment, impacting the agriculture and the people around. We need fossil fuels to warm the planet/ atmosphere around us, but too much warming will harm the environment. However, cooling the environment will take away some of the benefits of warming the plant and will only create deficits.
Grade: A
DeleteThe seven wedges we think should be implemented are 14, 13, 11, 10, 8, 4, and 2. Stopping deforestation destroys a lot of jobs, and forces us to find alternate wood products. Driving two billion cars on ethanol eliminates 1/6th of valuable cropland. Some parts of the world are already struggling to find food and with an increasing population more food problems could be created. If we increase solar and wind power some jobs could be lost in the coal industry. Along with this, our current factory structures revolve around coal. This could be an expensive change for companies to make. Installing CCS technologies at coal plants would be extremely expensive. Along with this, issues could arise as a result of the large quantities of carbon being injected into the ground. An attempt to increase efficiency at coal power plants would be an expensive task. It could also affect jobs and how the plant operates, leading to resistance. Lastly, if we attempt to cut our driving miles in half, it would force major lifestyle and infrastructure changes upon us. We would need to update our road systems and increase carpooling/public transportation methods. The benefits of implementing these concepts would be fantastic for the environment. However, in order to make it a reality, people would need to be willing to pay up for it and accept some lifestyle changes.
ReplyDeleteGroup #2
Grade: A
Delete1. Stop all deforestation-
ReplyDeletea. People need wood to build things
b. How do you enforce this?
c. Expensive to regulate and enforce
2. Drive two billion cars on ethanol-
a. Not a good enough energy return
b. Raises food prices
c. Concern about damage to the environment from growing excess corn
d. Requires government subsidies in order to be competitive
e. expensive
3. Add twice today’s nuclear output to displace coal-
a. Spent nuclear rods must be stored somewhere
b. Obvious health risks if something goes wrong
c. Very expensive
4. Cut electricity in homes, offices, and stores by 25%-
a. Heavily slows productivity
b. Forced to lose certain amenities that use lots of energy such as A/C and heat
c. How is this enforced? Do you turn off electricity at some points of the day?
5. Increase solar power 700-fold-
a. Solar power technology is not capturing enough energy to be credibly useful
b. What happens on a cloudy day? What happens in places where it rains a lot?
c. Where are you going to put all of these solar panels?
d. Expensive
6. Replace 400 coal fire plants with natural gas-
a. Natural gas also releases carbon emissions
b. Incredibly high upfront costs to change the capabilities of the plants
c. Increased fracking.
7. Drive 2 billion cars a year 5,000 miles a year instead of 10,000 miles a year
a. How do you limit how many miles a person can drive?
b. Limits peoples’ ability to travel, see their families, and go to work.
c. You will have to supply cheap and convenient public transportation
Grade: A
DeleteWe chose to cut electricity use in homes, offices, stores by 25 percent, increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal, increase wind power 80-fold to make hydrogen for cars, drive two billion cars on ethanol using one sixth of world cropland, drive two billion cars not 10,000 but 5,000 miles a year, and to stop all deforestation.
ReplyDeleteIn order to cut electricity use in homes, offices, and stores by 25 percent, people have to be able to afford the initial cost of purchasing new devices, such as environmentally efficient washing and drying machines. The problem with increasing solar power to displace coal is that it is extremely expensive, and it can also be challenging to find a place to build the device. The same goes for wind power as well. Additionally wind power poses a huge problem for many bird populations. The issue with driving two billion cars is that it takes up too much land, and this space could be used for agricultural purposes instead. Lastly, it would be incredibly challenging to stop all deforestation because people could no longer use any wood products.
Grade: A
DeleteGroup 5:
ReplyDelete1. Wedge 1: Increase fuel economy of two billion cars from 30-60 mpg
-Bad for gas companies and car dealerships because they would be making less of a profit
2. Wedge 4: Raise fuel efficiency at 1600 large coal fired plants from 40 to 60 percent
-They could take the same amount of fuel out, still depleting resources.
3. Wedge 3: Cut electricity use in homes. offices, and stores by 25%
-Business that need more energy to run efficiently would be cut and the Western world would have to get used to a different lifestyle.
4. Wedge 9: Add twice today's nuclear output to displace coal
- Another nuclear melt down, unsafe areas if handled wrong
5. Wedge 11: Increase solar power by 700 fold to displace coal
- Cloudy days and snow diminish the amount of energy something can take in
6. Wedge 10: Increase wind power by 40 fold to displace coal
-If there is no wind, then less power is created
7. Wedge 7: Install CCS at coal plants that produce hydrogen for 1.5 billion vehicles
-Hydrogen is volatile, so if it is mishandled then it could be dangerous
Grade: A
DeleteNatural gas is often seen as a cleaner alternative to coal. However, natural gas still produces carbon dioxide. Natural gas is also made of methane which compared to carbon dioxide, is a much more potent greenhouse gas. If evaluating the benefits of a natural gas plant against a poorly operating coal powered plant, then the benefits of natural gas make it look like an outstanding choice. However, if comparing a natural gas powered plant to a relatively clean coal powered plant, there are not as many benefits. Natural gas still emits carbon dioxide and contains methane so it would be better if yet another alternative energy was used. An alternative that has no carbon dioxide emissions would be a better choice.
ReplyDeleteCarbon capture and storage (CCS) is the process of trapping carbon dioxide that is produced by burning fossil fuels. A negative impact of installing CCS at 800 large coal powered plants is that those plants would still be running on coal and producing carbon dioxide. While the capturing the carbon dioxide does help to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that gets into the atmosphere, only about 90% of CO2 is captured so CO2 is still being added to the atmosphere. It would be better if no CO2 was being pumped into the atmosphere.
Add twice today’s nuclear output to displace coal.
The problem with nuclear is that it’s considered a nonrenewable energy source that produces radioactive waste. Furthermore, with twice the amount of nuclear power plants there is double the chance for a Fukushima disaster to happen.
Increase solar power 700-fold to displace coal
Not only is solar energy very expensive to install, it also cost a lot of money to store the energy. Furthermore, the solar panels require a large amount of space that would be most beneficial for the solar intake, which would also solely be intermittent since there is not constant sunshine anywhere.
Drive cars on ethanol
The citizens of the world already use most all of the crop land for consuming leaving little to no crop land or food left for cars to consume particularly one six of the land. Furthermore, the process of creating ethanol releases greenhouse gases and essentially cancels out the advantages that potentially could be created by running our cars on ethanol.
Fuel Efficiency in Cars. In terms of solely increasing the fuel economy of cars, there are several negative outcomes that can occur. The first and perhaps most prevalent, is that in order to meet the more stringent fuel standards that the government is placing, we have automakers lying about their emissions to create fuel efficient vehicles with high mpg, as seen in the Volkswagen TDI clean diesel scandal. The other possible negative outcome is that we produce large amounts of hybrid, alternative fuel, and electric vehicles and fail to build the infrastructure that is needed to support the driving of these cars on a day to day basis.
Wind Power. While wind powered turbines are a generally reliable source of clean green energy, the negative outcomes with them are the huge amounts of space that they require to install. In order to efficiently produce wind energy, there must be large swaths of clear open land to function in an appropriate manner. In order for this to occur, we may change habitats and landscapes, which affect runoff and the environment that the animals surrounding these wind farms currently live in. In essence, the large amount of land that would have to be developed for these turbines to work could have to high of an opportunity cost.
group 6
Grade: A
Delete