I agree with the statement that a lot of the technology we have available today can help reduce waste and improve our energy efficiency significantly. Unfortunately, I do not think technology is the reason for our slow transition to more energy-efficient ways of production, distribution, and end use. I believe it has to do more with the cost of implementing such systems.
As a residential example, homes of all ages could use newer materials and hardware to improve their homes insulation which in return makes their home more energy-efficient and saves them on energy costs. They can increase the r-value in the homes by adding or improving the type of insulation of the walls, roof, doors and windows. Buy new energy-efficient appliances including a tankless water heater or even doing a geothermal heat pump, but in the end it comes down to cost. Some homes being developed are to achieve zero-emissions or all the material in the home are to be eco-friendly, so there are many opportunities available it’s just a matter of how much a homeowner is willing to spend in the upfront costs.
Another opportunity that has been a slow transition is the smart-grid. Some areas already have it up and running, while other cities and states are expected to have it completed by 2018. I have learned a lot about this system over the last year and it’s amazing in what it will achieve but it will cost a lot of money. Below are some links to give more information on the smart-grid.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/24/us-utilities-smartgrid-epri-idUSTRE74N7O420110524
http://www.usnews.com/news/energy/slideshows/10-cities-adopting-smart-grid-technology/11
http://energy.gov/oe/services/technology-development/smart-grid
Swale,
I am so glad that you mentioned tankless hot water heater being used for residential improvements. The units are so much more efficient, and even nicer than a hot water tank since they take up less space.
It sometimes takes some brainstorming to come up with affordable ways to increase the efficiency of existing structures. For example, even though insulation is a major way to use less energy, how many homeowners will want to remove and add new drywall? Like you said it all come down to cost.
Hello!
It’s very true that almost all decisions come down to how much something costs. I wonder how much faster things would change if consumers could see in terms of emissions and pollution how much the cheaper option now will cost them. Imagine if when buying insulation the amount of CO2 emissions saved were listed by the price. How do you feel about nuclear as a quick fix to the lasting problem of clean energy? I’m conflicted about the risk of radiation versus the reliability of a low emission power source.
Laura
Here’s the link to my post!
http://engr312.dutton.psu.edu/2014/09/05/laura-hammonds-lesson-two/
I think that is something they should do! Listing something like the amount of CO2 emissions being reduced by buying a certain product, and for those that don’t understand what the amount really means to them it could list comparisons like, “this amount of CO2 reduction would be the same as taking 20 cars off the street, by replacing 2000 light bulbs to CFL, etc.” I also think next to these there should be a sign saying “THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE! THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN!” haha maybe that will get through to people!
I wouldn’t really call nuclear a quick fix, but I do think it is the best viable option given our state with the energy crisis. We need to stop or at least extremely limit our use of non-renewable resources and I think approving this new nuclear plant is a start in the right direction. But we always have to consider the good with the bad, that’s just something we will always have to do. Thanks for replying!