Category: Sustainability/Climate

The Keystone XL Pipeline is a plan introduced by Canada to construct an oil pipeline system that would extend between Alberta, Canada, the through the midwest of the United States down to the Gulf of Mexico in Texas. To begin, the U.S. government and the Obama administration must first approve the plan. There are many opposed to the pipeline because of environmental reason and in favor of the pipeline for foreign policy reasons. The pipeline would run through several U.S. states shown in the diagram below. These would include Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.

 

Here are the pros and cons of such a project:

PROS

1. According to Harvard Magazine: “[The Pipeline] could transport 830,000 barrels of oil daily—but not all from the Alberta tar sands: the pipeline would also carry at least some oil from the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota.”

“Oil production from the Alberta tar sands totaled 1.9 million barrels per day in 2012 and is projected to double by 2022.”

2. The pipeline will increase the access to Canadian oil and will also create job opportunities within the United States while not drilling in our own country. According to keystone-xl.com the project will bring in $5 billion to the private sector and can create possibly 9,000 jobs for the construction industry.

3. Supporters argue that the pipeline will help make the United States more energy independent and they will no longer have to rely on less stable nations for an oil supply.

CONS

 

1. The Keystone XL pipeline will accessing Alberta Tar sands which is among the most environmentally dangerous oils in the world. Burning the recoverable tar sands oil will increase the earth’s temperature by a minimum of 2 degree Celsius, according to labor4sustainability.org.

2. According to the same Harvard Magazine referenced earlier, “From 1990 to 2011, Canada’s annual emissions of greenhouse gases increased from 591 million to 702 million tons; exploitation of the Alberta tar sands accounted for 7.8 percent of total national emissions in 2011”. Also, pipelines runs the risk of leaking or combusting, which could devastate the area.

3. Many Americans, especially in the states that the pipeline will pas do not approve of the pipeline passing through their land, especially privately owned land. The idea of the pipeline passing through their backyard isn’t a good one to them. Plus only 56% of Americans approve the decision, a large part of those supporters are Republicans.

 

Sources:

http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/11/the-keystone-xl-pipeline

5 Reasons Why the Keystone Pipeline is Bad for the Economy

http://keystone-xl.com/five-reasons-why-keystone-xl-benefits-the-u-s/

Demand response “allows energy users of all kinds to act as “virtual power plants,” adding stability to the grid by voluntarily lowering their demand for electricity,” according to enernoc.com. “Demand response energy reduction measures are customized for each facility and can include turning off lighting, air conditioning, pumps, and other non-essential equipment.”

When electricity was finally harnessed it opened many new doors for human advancement, but without access to this new resource development would be impossible. Enter the US electric grid, a series of generation plants and transmission lines first built in the 1890′s to spread this powerful technology.

Since it’s beginnings in the 1890′s the grid has been updated, enhanced, tweaked, and modified, but the infrastructure itself remains mostly the same. As the framework is over one-hundred years old the system is barely coping with the huge demands we place on it on a daily basis.

To counteract this increase in demand on an old system the US is working on what is known as the “Smart Grid”. This modern system is being designed from the ground up to take a 21′st century approach the power distribution. In addition to accommodating for the increased, (and continually increasing) demands the Smart Grid is being built to reduce costs in all aspects of the three phase power distribution.

Incorporating computers and self monitoring systems into the new grid is where the Smart Grid really brings a old resource into the modern world. By having the system monitor itself the Smart Grid will be able to reroute power when there are outages, inform consumers of their peak usage, prepare the system for peak hours, alert workers to location of outages and overloads and help prevent surges.

While the power industry majorly benefits from this new system it is the consumers who get the best deal. Being able to monitor your power usage on a hourly basis helps keep people informed as where they use the most. The self monitoring system helps reduce cost by preventing peak overloads, and dispersing power around outages as well as reducing maintenance costs to the power companies which reduces the cost of power further.

The other area where the Smart Grid flourishes is in renewable energy. In addition to the money saving and self monitoring nature of they system, this new power distribution grid is being designed to accommodate renewable sources of energy. Smart has a whole new meaning when it comes to the addition of renewable energy. The grid will better accommodate houses with solar panels, existing wind-farms  and allow for an increase in power generating technologies that will help us fight global warming.

The Smart Grid gives us new hope for the security and success of our country, after it is fully implemented the backbone of our technology industry will be stronger and every day life will have a guaranteed availability of power.

Sources:

http://www.enernoc.com/our-resources/term-pages/what-is-demand-response

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/demand-response.htm

http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid

What is Hydrofracking? It is a legitimate question.  Not many people seem to know much about it. Spell check wanted to change it ‘hydrogenation’. Through educated guesses and assumptions, one can predict that ‘Hydro’, refers to water, and ‘Fracking’ either refers to a new trend on social media, or is a term relatable to ‘fracturing’.

Also referred to as Slick Water Hydraulic Fracturing, (which I think rules out my social media trend theory), is defined by thinkbeforeyoufrack.org as “a economical and technological method, which enables natural gas producers to recover natural gas from dense shale formations. During the drilling process, the drill will bore deep down into the earth and then horizontally for approximately 8,ooo feet in each direction.”  By doing this domestically, the U.S. would decrease its dependence on international oil while also using a less damaging fossil fuel.

By drilling into the earth and applying a mixture of sand, water and chemicals, the natural gas is released from the shale and is then collected for use. It’s cleaner than crude oil and coal, and it has fewer losses in transportation than coal as well as being more environmentally friendly than other methods of drilling. But like any other form of drilling into the earth, hydrofracking is not entirely ‘Earth friendly’

The majority of this drilling is taking place in the Mid-Atlantic and Mid-West, mostly in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and parts of Eastern Ohio and Western New York (as seen in the map below). Before thedrilling can take place, trees must be cleared out from these heavily-wooded areas.

Furthermore, during the drilling, the chemical mixture used in the process contains chemicals like benzene which can be lethal. To make matters worse, no specific or clarified amount of chemical has been disclosed and in some cases can leak into water supplies. In addition to the possibility of leakage of these chemicals, 6-8 million gallons of water are used in the process. For comparison, an Olympic sized swimming pool uses just 2/3 million gallons.

With the down sides out of the way we come to the reason that a seemingly horrible process is common practice. The Marcellus basin deposit is believed to hold as much as 80 barrels of oil-worth of Natural gas. This strengthens our economy, reduces or dependency on imports, promotes the using of a cheaper and cleaner resource, and allows for cleaner energy creation for the US.

The U.S. has a lengthy and controversial history with drilling into the Earth, in this case, like in most, the situation can be helpful if it is treated the right way. Attention and care is needed, a lack in such could end up being detrimental to the process. The point is to become environmentally efficient while growing economically. From a scientific standpoint, let’s hope the U.S. focuses on the first of those goals rather than the latter, which hasn’t always necessarily been the case.

 

About Hydrofracking

http://www.peacecouncil.net/NOON/hydrofrac/HdryoFrac2.htm

http://www.citizenscampaign.org/campaigns/hydro-fracking.asp

 

 

The issue of genetically modified organisms, or genetically modified crops is a growing concern in world as illustrated by the article. But, as the article points out, those concerns are generated from an assumption that these modifications are the direct cause for contamination, disease, and health problems. Centered around the decision over a ban on GMO’s, the article follows councilman Greggor Ilagan in his quest to find out more about these GMO’s that he is unfamiliar with other than the general proclamations of dissatisfaction.

What Ilagan finds is incredible interesting and rather surprising. When the bill was first presented, it seemed to him to be a pretty easy decision considering the reputation that follows genetic modification. Yet, he was shocked when some locals began to approach him saying that the bill cannot be allowed to pass.

What Ilagan sets out to find is whether there is legitimate and justifiable cause to pass this bill to prevent GMO use without proper research and knowledge of the points made in the bill.

The bill, brought forth by Margaret Willie, who was urging the council to “act before it was too late.” It was her belief that GMO’s cause a rise in childhood allergies, out-of-control superweeds, genetic contamination, overuse of pesticides, and the disappearance of butterflies and bees. The bill comes with a concern that biotechnology companies will send Hawaiian and many other states’ growers in a position of weakness.

What Ilagan comes to find, is that many of the points used to argue against GMO’s are based on myth and GMO’s are not the main cause of any problems around the world. In fact, GMO’s had helped save a major crop in Hawaii, the Rainbow Papaya, without GMO’s, the sale of the Rainbow would become increasingly difficult.

Ilagan decided to vote against the bill, and though it was not enough to cancel the bill, it raises awareness toward future studies that will hopefully uncover more truths about the effect of GMO’s

In a country that is so unhealthy, America has become obsessed with health. Health has become commercial. Companies stated in the article like Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, and General Mills are promising or have promised to move away from GMO’s, not because increasing research shows negative effects, but rather because the consumer is demanding it.

GMO’s is just the latest debate in which public opinion and politics has trumped scientific study.