Economic Growth with Decreased Energy Use

The question of whether or not economic growth can occur simultaneously with a decrease in energy consumption is complex.  There is no way to answer this question without knowing the future however, the graph below seems to suggest that it is possible.  Although the graph shows an ever increasing GDP for the US, the energy consumption has not risen at the same rate.  Based solely on this graph, the United States GDP will continue to rise while the energy consumption rises at a more steady rate.  This suggests that GDP is not completely dependent on energy use and therefore it might be possible to decrease energy consumption while increasing GDP.

Where United States Energy Use Goes

The graphic below shows the percentages of energy consumed by the United States and what it is used for.  It is somewhat surprising that so much of the United States energy use comes from gas or diesel or jet fuel.  It is also interesting that such a small percentage of the US energy consumption goes to electronics because they seem very prevalent to current college students.

Sources:

http://www.withouthotair.com/

http://www.eredux.com/states/

Master Plan

In order to best utilize the resources available in the United States, each region will use the renewable energy that is most prevalent in the area.  For example, all of the solar energy farms will be located in the bright red area of the map and all the wind energy will come from the purple areas of the map.  

By only using the places with high wind and lots of sunlight, the area required for powering the US is reduced.  The plan for the United States energy production is summarized in the tables below:

As seen in the table, wind power will make up about 65% of the United States energy profile and solar power will make up about 32%.  This is done because the cost of wind power is significantly lower than the cost of solar power.  The area required fort the wind power is approximately 11.5% of Nebraska while the area required for solar is about 1.7% of Arizona.

This plan is not completely feasible because it would be difficult to transport the energy around the country.  

Sources:

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/usa/states/area.shtml

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmKKN7bKK3Pqy-RaWsM0ji9lVW5dGBphwEDt3QKEO7XfbVIjq3FyaDXZCiUxo2SIHhyz_MqQgxHGWhKXGLHsOmdl66PEBXtyM1-sETRtJj9XevIeSp13oVr_o51lhiS6mavZ7biB1nPSM_/s1600/esd_15.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_farm

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html

Energy Sources Comparison

To compare different energy sources a table has been created, which allows the reader to come to several conclusions about the different sources.

Sources:

https://icon.uiowa.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=1372240&tId=1985262

https://icon.uiowa.edu/d2l/lms/content/viewer/main_frame.d2l?ou=1372240&tId=1985262

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/05/why-capacity-factor-matters-to-energy-production/

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/06/09/energy-density-and-waste-comparison-of-energy-production/

http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/resources.asp

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html

http://www.fypower.org/feature/Natural_Gas_Situation.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=coal+reserves+in+the+us&um=1&hl=en&sa=N&biw=1920&bih=921&tbm=isch&tbnid=_pxa94J8QiZlMM:&imgrefurl=http://www.teachcoal.org/aboutcoal/articles/coalreserves.html&docid=UDbgqYXEO6MP-M&w=641&h=323&ei=QnKKTueINfKGsgKkwMmVBA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=228&page=1&tbnh=88&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=45&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=98&ty=51

http://205.254.135.24/oil_gas/rpd/conventional_gas.pdf

http://www.biofuels.apec.org/me_united_states.html

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=uranium+reserves+in+us&num=10&um=1&hl=en&biw=1920&bih=921&tbm=isch&tbnid=l_lH74AIK7t6pM:&imgrefurl=http://www.energysolution.us/overview2.html&docid=-6EFc5A2J2RIgM&w=702&h=533&ei=LHSKTrHcNcimsQLuuuzFBA&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=206&sqi=2&page=1&tbnh=132&tbnw=174&start=0&ndsp=48&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&tx=89&ty=53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_energy.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#World_coal_reserves

http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biomass.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

http://www.biomassenergycentre.org.uk/portal/page?_pageid=75,59188&_dad=portal

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20090930/25-cents-kilowatt-hour-americas-cheapest-cleanest-fuel-holds-steady

http://205.254.135.24/electricity/monthly/

http://www.repp.org/bioenergy/link5.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Are Energy Issues a Private or Public Concern?

Currently most of America is not truly concerned with energy issues, or most issues for that matter. This makes sense as energy prices are have not become of great concern for the the average person. Even a doubling of gas prices in only a few years has only marginally affected how people live their lives. The few who do care do what they can to influence politicians who in turn do a little to appease them, thereby showing that they are being proactive without really much effort. In order for the energy issue to not become an energy crisis both private citizens and public figures and corporations will need to get drastically more involved. Everyday people could install renewable or energy efficient upgrades to their homes or lobby elected officials to do similar things. The government should also be more proactive with legislation to put the nation on the right track to prevent the inevitable energy crisis 

What is Feasible?

It has been shown that the United States has the capability to produce a large amount of renewable energy, but is it reasonable to do this? The US, and the rest of the world could very well blanket large portions of land or sea to produce this electricity, as shown below. However, will the cost of doing this make it infeasible?

As the price per watt continues to decline for solar power plants more businesses will invest. Up and coming technologies are allowing these power plants to complete with coal on both price and land use. Once this has happened there will be little reason not to build as many solar power plants as possible.

Energy Density

Energy density is the amount of energy stored within an energy source.  This concept is intimately related to waste so it is best to examine them together.

Some examples of energy density in kWh/kg are below:

Nuclear Fission (100% U-235)	24,513,889
Natural Uranium (99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235) in a fast breeder reactor	6,666,667
Enriched Uranium (3.5% U-235) in a light water reactor	960,000
Natural Uranium (99.3% U-238, 0.7% U-235) in a light water reactor	123,056
LPG propane	13.8
LPG butane	13.6
Gasoline	13.0
Diesel fuel/Residential heating oil	12.7
Biodiesel oil	11.7
Anthracite Coal	9.0
Water at 100 m dam height	0.0003

It is obvious that nuclear has the highest energy density by far.  All other fuels are around the same range.

Because energy density is related to how much fuel is needed once it is used up it becomes the amount of waste that has been produced.  Below the waste per kWh is displayed.

Type of Plant	Amt of Electricity Produced (MWh)									Waste per kWh (lbs)
Nuclear	7,971,600									0.007
Coal	6,683,880									2,347
Natural Gas	998,640									400
Petroleum (Oil)	1,173,840									566

Once again the results are staggering.  Nuclear is much cleaner than all other options.  With this trend we must seriously consider nuclear to be a top option for energy production.  This means we must weigh all pros and cons to see if this is a viable option.


Sources:
http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/06/09/energy-density-and-waste-comparison-of-energy-production/