http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/epas-love-affair-with-carbon-about-to-end/ Business, Better. Since 2005 Sat, 21 Nov 2009 00:18:23 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.triplepundit.com/2009/01/epas-love-affair-with-carbon-about-to-end/comment-page-1/#comment-10165 Steve Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:12:29 +0000 http://www.triplepundit.com/wordpress/2009/01/epas-love-affair-with-carbon-about-to-end/#comment-10165 Depending on whose statistics you believe, coal produces about 48.3% of the power in the US, natural gas generates 21.5%, and oil produces 3%. That means that about 2/3 of the energy production in this country is linked to carbon emissions. According to the U.S. EIA, nuclear power (produces no carbon) accounts for about 19.4% and hydroelectric (ditto) is responsible for just shy of 6%. Many environmentalists hate these power sources almost as much as they detest carbon emitting ones due to their long term pollution or the whole damming thing. That leaves solar and geothermal, neither of which are real, long term solutions that will serve us any time soon. Other possibilities include personal solar and water generators, great alternatives for those who like to exist "off the grid". Neither are a real solution for the masses in many locations, though. Try using either one in Manhattan or Chicago. Those who say "we have to develop advanced, non carbon emitting power sources" have a great point, however they are just not very realistic in the near term. Fueling the majority of our electric needs from advanced technology is still decades away, even if research is ramped up substantially. In the long term there will be a huge economic benefit from being the developer of clean, renewable power sources. In the short term, we must make sure we don't irrevocably damage our economic viability that will give us the ability to do so. Depending on whose statistics you believe, coal produces about 48.3% of the power in the US, natural gas generates 21.5%, and oil produces 3%. That means that about 2/3 of the energy production in this country is linked to carbon emissions.
According to the U.S. EIA, nuclear power (produces no carbon) accounts for about 19.4% and hydroelectric (ditto) is responsible for just shy of 6%. Many environmentalists hate these power sources almost as much as they detest carbon emitting ones due to their long term pollution or the whole damming thing.
That leaves solar and geothermal, neither of which are real, long term solutions that will serve us any time soon. Other possibilities include personal solar and water generators, great alternatives for those who like to exist “off the grid”. Neither are a real solution for the masses in many locations, though. Try using either one in Manhattan or Chicago.
Those who say “we have to develop advanced, non carbon emitting power sources” have a great point, however they are just not very realistic in the near term. Fueling the majority of our electric needs from advanced technology is still decades away, even if research is ramped up substantially.
In the long term there will be a huge economic benefit from being the developer of clean, renewable power sources. In the short term, we must make sure we don’t irrevocably damage our economic viability that will give us the ability to do so.

]]>