���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������

Introduction

Many members of Generation Z who are interested in assisting in the fight against climate change have found themselves at somewhat of a crossroads. The issue is that no matter where we end up, there are a million different interconnected problems, all of which contribute substantially to habitat destruction, plastic pollution, air quality issues, climate change, and infinitely many more issues. To illustrate the problem, I created the following issue-map to depict a couple of the major issues plaguing the environmental crisis.

Clearly, the issues (even when oversimplified) are tightly interwoven. There is almost no singular issue that does not, at least partially, bleed into another. However, the most broadly impactful issue in this figure is that of climate change. Climate change is an extremely broad topic which is caused by an extremely large range of factors, but which is principally perpetrated by carbon dioxide emissions. 

If we look at the red tiles in the aforementioned chart, many of these energy problems can be solved with better technology or systems. These issues are ones which hold real possibility for engineering solutions. That is why it is so crucial that we as engineers focus on the energy side of environmental issues, because it is one of the most achievable paths towards progress in the fight against climate change.

Energy & Electricity

When viewing energy-use and electricity production, it is important to differentiate between the two. I will primarily focus on electricity generation, which focuses almost entirely on industrial electricity generation as well as rooftop solar. There are really two main categories of electricity generation: fossil fuels and alternative energy sources. For our fossil fuels, I will examine coal, oil and natural gas. Alternative energy sources, on the other hand, splits into renewable and depletable resources, however due to dissent surrounding the classification of sources in these categories, I will simply examine them as a whole. For our alternative sources, the United States has seen nuclear, hydropower, wind and solar as its strongest competitors. Although the world has seen emergence in geothermal energy production, specifically in Iceland, I will not discuss that in detail in this paper, (Ministry of the Environment Energy and Climate, n.d.). 

Fossil Fuels (Coal, Oil & Natural Gas)

To begin with the pros, Fossil Fuels are one of the more energy efficient means of creating energy. Coal in particular remains extremely energy-dense, and natural gas cogeneration plants have been able to reach near 60 percent efficiency in energy production (Friedland & Relyea, 2015). Fossil fuels are resources, therefore, they are economically extremely flat in terms of consumer cost. Even then, there has been technological innovation in the field that has allowed for the capital gain to increase anyway. Keeping a relatively low and stable cost is helpful to maintaining a good economy (Naam, 2022). Additionally, fossil fuels are a really accessible form of energy. In developing countries, burning fossil fuels is one of the primary sources of energy. It’s arguably extremely unfair to pull the foundations of development in third world nations while they are finally able to catch up. Finally, fossil fuels are an energy source that we are comfortable with. We have been using fossil fuels for an extremely long time. This means that we know a lot about the health impacts, we know how to use the fuels, we know how to introduce them to the market, and our current grid operates on an assumption that fossil fuels are being used for energy production. Additionally, it is important to remember that the grid was designed for fossil fuel electricity generation. This means that it is going to be the easiest method of producing electricity with our current grid system, thus why it is so important to consider methods of providing energy in a stable capacity to support our grid.

Moving into the cons of fossil fuels, the primary problem lies in emissions. Fossil fuels are notorious for releasing pollutants into the atmosphere and environment that are known to contribute to health problems and climate change. Coal in particular remains extremely dangerous, releasing sulfur dioxide, toxic metals (mercury and lead), and remains the highest emitter of CO2 of all energy sources (Relyea & Friedland, 2015). Additionally, these fuels are difficult to contain. They are prone to seepage and contamination at many different steps of their refinement, transport, and burning. Although this is regularly documented with oil through oil spills and coal with acid mine drainage, natural gas has been known to leak as well with equally severe results. In 2015, California had a huge leak at a natural gas storage well, called the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak/Well Failure. This leak was the largest in history, releasing 97,100 tons of methane before the company was able to notice and contain it. Shifting to economics, fossil fuels, gasoline in particular, are prone to instability in their pricing. The cost has remained at a near-constant baseline on average (Statista Research Department, 2023). When viewed in tandem with the economic model of renewables, fossil fuels have already started to lose in cost to renewable alternatives (Naam, 2022).

Hydroelectric Power

Jumping into hydroelectric power, let’s start with the pros. Hydroelectric is one of the most popular and reliable forms of renewable energy production. It not only produces electricity but can also act as a flood-prevention device, or to create recreational spaces like reservoirs. This gives it both recreational and infrastructural utility, something that no other forms of energy offer. In addition, it’s extremely stable in its production of electricity which is crucial in finding ways to create a stable grid in the face of a renewable transition. Due to its stable nature, it remains a very popular source of energy when it is possible to construct, and one which we understand very well due to how long we have utilized it. Further, it is low cost to run for a similar reason. It doesn’t really need a ton of maintenance in comparison to other electricity plants, because it is self-sustaining once installed barring any extenuating circumstances.

There are, however, cons to this form of electricity as well. The most obvious of these cons are geographic limitations. Dams are obviously very dependent on a water source, and when we need to construct them, it is important to ensure that there will be enough water, and that the water will not displace important infrastructure when installed. Construction of a dam is also extremely time and labor intensive, making it difficult to consider when focusing on a quick transition to alternative energy sources. 

Furthermore, there are hidden costs to building dams which we can illustrate with the following example. The Hoover Dam is composed of “4,360,000 cubic yards of concrete,” which when converted into a mass is a whopping 8,720,000,000 pounds of concrete, (Bureau of Reclamation et al., 2015) & (CEMEX, n.d.). Considering that approximately 0.9 pounds of carbon dioxide is released for every pound of cement, this would have resulted in 7,848,000,000 pounds of CO2 released during the construction of the Hoover Dam from concrete alone (Ramsden, 2020). Hydroelectric power also produces thermal pollution, which when released back into rivers, lakes, or ponds, has been found to kill a vast majority of the native wildlife, (Relyea & Friedland, 2015). Thermal pollution is a result of wasted heat that is absorbed by the water in the energy-production process. This is really dangerous, because to a sensitive marine environment, a few degrees Fahrenheit can be the difference between comfort and death. There is also the rather upsetting fact that hydroelectric dams have “a history of flooding tribal lands” (Stevens, 2023a). There are numerous instances of Native villages and food-sources being destroyed through the production of dams. In 1953, Congress allowed the US Army Corps of Engineers to begin construction of dams along the Celilo Falls for an increased power demand in the Pacific Northwest. These dams flooded the Celilo Falls trading grounds, of which were extremely culturally significant to tribes as “far away as the Dakotas, Alaska, and Northern California,” who would travel all the way to the grounds to trade (The National Museum of the American Indian, 2018). Additionally, it disrupted the migration patterns of the salmon on which native people primarily depended on as a food source despite treaties guaranteeing the sanctity of the fishing sites.

Wind

Wind turbines have made impressive strides over the past few years, especially with the further development of offshore wind farms. Leading with the pros, offshore wind turbines have a lot of potential in the United States and are doing quite well in windy areas. Additionally, there have been a lot of developments in integrated installation of turbines. To install these turbines over farmland would be one of the most effective ways to use land-based wind energy. In areas like Wyoming, Nebraska, or Kansas, this would work especially well considering the wind speeds of the region and the amount of space used for agriculture or cattle alone. They also don’t produce any emissions after installation, which is definitely important. They have also remained competitive in terms of upfront cost, and don’t require excessive amounts of upkeep to allow them to work. Wind is also a non-depletable resource meaning that there is no way for us to run out of wind in the manner in which we run out of fossil fuels. This makes it an important long-term competitor in the energy industry.

Wind, however, is not necessarily a constant resource. With the amount of variation in wind speeds and presence, it is much too erratic to be able to sustain the current grid by itself. Additionally, although turbines are often supported in theory, fewer voters have been shown to support construction of turbine and wind projects in their area. When polling voters, the Washington Post found that although 90 percent of Democrats were in favor of constructing wind turbines, only 81 percent supported the construction of those projects in their areas. Turbines are notoriously “ugly” and loud, and are often targeted by “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) campaigning in more affluent regions of the U.S. (Stevens, 2023b) & (Arthurs, 2021). To make matters more complicated, these NIMBY campaigns also delay the construction of wind turbines which are approved by governing bodies (Motavelli, 2021). Wind is great in theory, especially in specific geographic applications, but difficult in deployment in practice despite that. 

Solar (Photovoltaic Cells)

The solar energy industry has been booming lately. With how many corporations offer at-home solar installations, it was bound to become popular in suburban America, especially with the decreased cost and increased efficiency. Solar panels also are a lot safer to install and maintain considering that they do not have huge moving parts whose failures spell disaster. Additionally, they are able to integrate into the landscape of homes without too much interference in small applications, specifically through rooftop solar. They remain subtle and quiet, unlike the less-popular wind turbines. They are also increasingly effective as battery technology has improved alongside panels. 

However, solar also has cons to rival the other energy forms. Photovoltaic solar cells are extremely resource intensive. Many of the rare-Earth metals present in the panels are mined in dangerous conditions and in the face of increasing scarcity. These metals are also extremely toxic in nature, which means that there is a high risk in having them mined, especially in the third world, which is where a lot of these toxic chemicals are mined from. There is also the fact that solar cells are extremely far away from the energy source which they feed from. This means that weather variation, or even partial interference of the direct sunlight can cause the panels to keep from charging to their full potential. In our driest areas, where solar panels work the best, this coverage can even take the form of dust covering the panels, and interfering with the efficiency of the cells, (Nixon, 2023). In plant applications, there is also the issue which comes with variability in the hours. Peak solar harvesting occurs around mid-day, which is difficult because the peak electricity hours are later in the day and sometimes after the sun sets. This requires a lot more area to be covered with panels to cover for this discrepancy. 

Nuclear Fission

Moving into the most controversial form of energy production, we have nuclear energy. This is a difficult source to parse, because nuclear power is a polarized and stigmatized energy source. The Pew Research Center conducted a survey in 2020 on the public opinion of nuclear energy to demonstrate this. In this study, they found that approximately 45 percent of U.S. adults are in favor of constructing more nuclear power plants with 51 percent opposed and 4 percent with no opinion. Interestingly, the same study found that 65 percent of scientists in the American Association for the Advancement of Science were in favor of constructing more nuclear power plants with only 33 percent opposing and 2 percent with no opinion, (Rainie, 2020). However, public perception of nuclear power has started to shift. Many prominent environmentalists have come out in support of nuclear energy in the last few years. A few news outlets claimed this to be as a result of a more urgent concern for carbon emissions which required a shift in priorities, (Mark, n.d.). 

Unlike the previously explored energy sources, we will begin with the cons of nuclear energy, because some of them are directly addressed with most of the presented pros found in reports. One of the biggest problems with nuclear energy is the production of waste. ���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������ 75 percent of Americans are concerned about the waste disposal as related to nuclear waste (Speiser & Hill, 2021). This is not necessarily due to the quantity of waste produced, but the dangerous nature of the waste and the lack of plan for the disposal of the material. According to the EPA, “there is currently no permanent disposal facility for high level waste. HLW must continue to be stored at commercial reactors and selected DOE facilities,” (EPA, n.d.).  There has been some progress in this front with the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which supports the use of repositories underground to store hazardous material, (EPA, 2022). Even so, there is still “about 88,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel… stranded at reactor sites, and this number is increasing by some 2,000 metric tons each year,” (Macfarlane & Ewing, 2023). This is concerning, because a year after the U.S. passed legislation indicative of progress in disposal of hazardous materials, there is still an incredible amount of waste still on commercial sites. The second most common concern is that of health and safety in nuclear energy production. Looking at Chernobyl and Fukushima which are the two worst nuclear meltdowns in history, there is obviously concern for safety when nuclear energy production is involved. In the face of earthquakes, poor maintenance, safety violations, or even minor accidents, there could be an incredibly high toll for relatively small mistakes. Additionally, some papers have found that there is omission of on-site accidents in nuclear energy production, claiming that “thousands upon thousands of small events - but with the potential to cascade into larger ones - remain unreported” (Wheatley et al., 2016). This is obviously incredibly concerning. We know that radiation and radioactive waste are dangerous, especially after long-term exposure, but it is difficult to quantify the true effects of minor accidents on the workers of the plants. Also, when we do find an off-site storage space for waste products, what about the people who have to transport the hazardous material? To transport the waste in an armored vehicle is still incredibly dangerous considering the possibility of car accidents or terrorist attacks along the way. Third, there is a lot of concern about the security and weaponization of nuclear resources that might be proliferated by nuclear energy. According to some, “the materials, technology, and expertise needed for [Uranium] enrichment can be used to both generate nuclear power and develop nuclear weapons,” (World101, n.d.). This is, again a valid concern, especially with the renewed threat of nuclear weapons as brought on from Russia due to the war in Ukraine. 

Some of the less prominent concerns include the very high upfront cost. The timeframe of construction alone makes it expensive, but in addition to that, the technology and Uranium are expensive to purchase and develop. There is also concern over the time constraint as mentioned previously. The median time to construct a nuclear plant, as of 2021 was 88 months, or just over 7 years, (Statista, 2022). This is often cited by environmentalists as too late to help in the fight against climate change, (Jacobson, 2022). Additionally, nuclear energy is not technically renewable. Uranium is of limited supply and thus is prone to running out eventually. It also requires mining to be done rather extensively to retrieve the resource to begin with, which as we discussed in the solar section, is concerning in third world countries.

Moving to the pros of the issue, nuclear energy is by far the most efficient form of electricity production to date. Last year, the United States used 4.05 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity. If all of that electricity were supplied by nuclear power, that would occupy only 469 square miles of land, beating out the footprint of all other sources of energy by over one-thousand square miles (Stevens, 2023b). The waste product of nuclear energy as well is rather small in scale. It is a much denser form of waste, in that it is much smaller in volume and larger in mass. The volume is small enough that as of 2009, if all of your lifetime electricity was produced with nuclear, the waste would fit inside of a coke bottle, (Brand, 2009). This statistic was also taken before the smaller and more effective nuclear power plants were starting to enter the market, meaning that it could be an overestimate. Additionally, there is no emission waste, and all of the electricity-specific waste products are self-contained and closely tracked and monitored, (Relyea & Friedland, 2015). This form of electricity is shown to be incredibly stable as well, making it a competitor in the current electric grid system. This is a necessary trait to be able to replace fossil fuels as a “backup” source of power needed in case of extreme weather conditions that disarm wind or solar production. In fact, in the United States, the states with the “cleanest” power generation have been heavily reliant on either nuclear or hydroelectric energy (Stevens, 2023a). To expand on previous concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation, prominent environmentalist Stewart Brand claims that “in terms of proliferation, nuclear energy has done more to dismantle nuclear weapons than any other activity,” (Brand, 2009). This quote is specifically referring to the Megatons to Megawatts Program, which allowed for 20,000 Russian nuclear warheads to be converted to U.S. electricity over the course of 20 years. (US Department of Energy, 2013). This meant that “one in ten American lightbulbs [were] powered by dismantled Russian nuclear weapons” making this one of the “most successful nuclear nonproliferation partnerships undertaken,” (Wang, 2023). The facilities are also extremely highly regulated and secure due to tacit understanding of the dangers faced with nuclear fission processes. Since the terrorist attacks in September 2001, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has increased safety requirements, giving NRC-regulated facilities their reputation as “among the most secure of the nation’s critical infrastructure,” (US NRC, 2019). 

Environmentalist Pressures & Issues in Policy

Climate change is no longer a far-off problem. According to the most recent Global Climate Report, 2022 was 1.55 degrees Fahrenheit above the global average (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2023). Although the causes of weather variation are debated across scientific papers, it is especially clear that there has been increased polarization of climate patterns across the globe, (Gates, 2021, pp. 24–33). The figure supplied by NOAA depicted above shows some of the severe weather events which occurred in 2022, (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA], 2023).

Even as the horizon of the climate crisis draws closer, we are not progressing enough to stall or mitigate the issue. The carbon intensity, which measures the kilograms of CO2 released per million BTUs of energy, has only dropped from 59 to 49 in the United States over the last 20 years, (Stevens, 2023a). There is also an increasingly polarized divide between proposed paths to a carbon-free electric grid. People tend to weigh pros and cons very differently across the board. Where some environmentalists are especially anti-hydroelectric due to habitat disruption, others are primarily anti-wind due to the casualties of birds who fly into the turbines. Additionally, there is a lot of debate in the scientific community over creating an accurate prediction model to better understand what we have to do to meet the demands of the climate crisis. Some scientists expect global energy demand to decrease over time, and thus are optimistic about the present renewable technologies and their ability to meet demand, (One Earth, 2020). There are still many that disagree with this, expecting to see a huge increase in electricity demand to account for developing nations among a litany of other reasons, (Gates, 2010). 

These internal disagreements have divided the environmental movement and slowed climate action in politics. There is no consensus on where to go next, even though there is a common goal: to decrease carbon emissions and allow for a safer future. Even under the recent push for alternative energy development and funding, there has still been an incredible amount of disagreement over how we do this. Most prominently, there is a huge push for wind and solar as the two are popular alternatives to traditional fossil fuels. However, there has not been as much of an effort to alter the infrastructure of the grid to accommodate, (Lynas & Bradford, 2012). 

It is for these reasons that I find it fair to say that two of the biggest issues in American energy right now are: transitioning to alternative energy sources and creating a stable grid to accommodate. These issues go hand-in-hand, and if we are to consider the broader picture of these problems, there is a good chance that we could lay out a proper framework to solve both. 

However, with the current divisions plaguing the environmental movement, we have not seen the change that we need to be able to combat the climate crisis. There has not been a change in accountability for corporations, or for countries who do not care to cut their carbon emissions. Worse yet, corporations and politicians are able to scrape by with a falsified interest in alternative energy sources, only to maintain the current electric system in policy and practice. 

Energy-Based Solutions

While working to create a better climate, it makes the most sense for engineers to work on solving energy-specific issues. As we mentioned previously, divisions between environmentalists has created stagnation in climate activism. This stall allows for coal and natural gas to maintain their position in the market as backups for variability in solar and wind energy production, (Blunt, 2022). If policy and public opinion is primarily in favor of solar and wind, we will see issues with intermittent energy production due to the structure of the grid. This is a huge problem because the main method of combating blackouts from weather variation is importing electricity. Due to the structure of the grid in the United States, it is extremely difficult for us to transport electricity over long distances and to neighboring states, meaning that if we were to import electricity from neighboring states, it would primarily be with fossil fuels.

CO²=P*S*E*C

Above is an equation used by Bill Gates in his TED Talk: Innovating to Zero. This equation details how carbon emissions are affected by many different variables, (Gates, 2010). The P in this equation is for population, which is increasing. The S in this equation stands for “services per person” which is also increasing. However, this is good because it indicates that the standard of living has been improving, especially in the developing world. The E is for energy, which has actually been decreasing due to an increase in efficiency of energy production. This is also a good thing, but it is primarily canceled out by the increase in S and P sections of the equation. This is why Bill Gates argues that we should shift our focus to C: CO2 per energy unit. He challenges, in the talk, for us to innovate our emissions down to zero. When we ask what that entails in the electricity sector, Gates goes into detail in the chapter titled “How We Plug In” from his book How To Avoid A Climate Disaster. These developments include updates to the US grid system, further development of carbon-free energy sources, innovation in energy storage options, carbon capture and decreased usage of electricity and energy, (Gates, 2021, pp. 66–97). This is obviously a big challenge, but if we are to focus ourselves on creating a stable, carbon-neutral grid as Mr. Gates has described, our CO2 emissions will no longer be an important part of the equation. If we are to do this in the US we have to consider huge infrastructural projects to update the grid or an integrated approach to alternative energy sources (Blunt, 2022) & (Gates, 2021, pp. 66–97).

Selling Points of Alternative Energy Sources

There are a number of benefits to alternative energy sources, but for them to succeed in persuading the public of their applicability, they have to be able to appeal to more than one set of priorities. That is why I discuss alternative energy sources in terms of economics, health, and welfare perspectives.

Primarily, alternative energy sources will win the economic battle against fossil fuels. This is previously addressed in the fossil fuels background, where we detailed the resource-based cost models. Basically, fossil fuels have been subject to rise and fall in their costs over a short term. However, when viewed over the last twenty years, the average cost of fossil fuels has remained relatively constant, (Statista Research Department, 2023), (Roser & Our World in Data, 2022) & (Naam, 2022). Additionally, the costs for renewable energies have decreased over time, much more akin to what we would expect in technological economic models, (Naam, 2022) & (Roser & Our World in Data, 2020). Viewing the chart to the right, we can see that in 10 years, the drop in price of photovoltaic solar electricity has outpaced all other forms of electricity production, with the only real competitors in price being gas and onshore wind. Nuclear is the only alternative source that did not see a drop, but this is likely because of the increase of regulations surrounding nuclear plant construction, (Roser & Our World in Data, 2022). We can see that with coal, the competition with wind and solar is no contest economically, and with the slopes of other alternative energy sources (excluding nuclear) we may have reason for optimism for an economic incentive to make a renewable switch.

Additionally, there are inherent health benefits to switching to renewables. As depicted in the figure above, the safest and cleanest sources of energy intersect despite the fact that the model includes freak accidents like Chernobyl, Fukushima, and the Banqiao Dam failure in its fatality calculations. To view these numbers fairly, this model does so in relation to energy produced. Otherwise, because fossil fuels have existed for a very long time, they would vastly outnumber the deaths as attributed to other sources. Even still, solar, nuclear, wind, and hydropower all remain relatively safe, not breaching two deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity produced. Coal and oil, on the other hand remain more dangerous, with coal’s 24.6 deaths per terawatt-hour and oil at 18.4 deaths per terawatt-hour (Ritchie & Our World in Data, 2020). Other sources estimate that fossil fuel air pollution kills one in five people, (Chaisson, 2021). Air pollution is an incredibly dangerous side effect of fossil fuel combustion. The remedy to this is to remove fossil fuels from electricity generation to create a safer and pollution-free environment.

There is also the matter of public welfare to be considered. As of 2021, there were an estimated 754 million people who did not have access to electricity (Cozzi et al., 2022). Many of whom reside within South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa. These are the same people who are likely to suffer the most from climate change (Gates, 2021). UN Administrator Kemal Dervis says it best, “while developing countries have contributed the least to the problem, they are expected to bear the brunt of the impact of climate change, which threatens to jeopardize many of the developmental gains that have already been achieved,” (Dervis, 2007). With the increased need for electricity in the modern age, it becomes incredibly important to supply developing countries with electricity to aid in their developmental progress. Yet when so much of the developing world does not have electricity, and many developed countries ask for them to do so in a sustainable manner, they are prone to being left behind. Even with the promising development of off-grid solar electricity, Sub Saharan Africa is still leading in the number of people without access to electricity, (Inamdar, 2017) & (Ritchie et al., 2020). Through further development and production of accessible off-grid electricity, we will be able to help millions of people achieve electricity production and allow for them to do so in a manner which is conducive to a clean environment, (Inamdar, 2017). Through solar especially, there is incredible potential in many sunny developing regions to harness electricity in a safe manner. This has the added benefit of protecting these people from further acceleration of climate change while simultaneously aiding in their development through electricity generation, which has become a necessity in today’s age.

Proposal

Now that we have discussed the background, the problem, and the plan to move forward, we have to lay out what it is that we have to do now. Right now, the public has become increasingly focused on pushing solar and wind energy. The issue is that we are struggling to create good batteries that are able to account for the intermittency of the most prominent alternative energy sources. Due to the nature of the grid, as we previously mentioned, it is extremely difficult to replace fossil fuels through intermittent forms of energy. Through the increasing prominence of wind and solar especially, we threaten to create an even more unstable grid by relying on power sources that do not meet the fossil fuel baseline. It is an unfortunate fact that “in practice, electric grids with lots of wind and solar, such as those in California and Massachusetts, often rely on carbon-emitting natural gas plants that can quickly ramp up generation to fill in the gaps,” (Stevens, 2023a). 

The issue is not solar, nor is it wind, it is the thought that there is an “easy solution” to one of the most complex issues that science currently faces. If we were to roll-out solar and wind on a massive scale, even if we rely primarily on offshore wind to stabilize, we still stand the risk of leaving out the land-locked states. Look at Colorado, we have extremely variable weather conditions, and are not privy to a close offshore wind farm. Although about 25 percent of our electricity comes from wind, we still rely heavily on coal and natural gas with their combined 69 percent of our electricity generation. Although our carbon intensity has been dropping, we are 40th in the nation, arguably because of the coal that we still rely on. Colorado’s best option to reduce emissions further would be to use nuclear if we plan to generate the electricity in our own state, (Stevens, 2023a). Otherwise, we risk continuing to rely on coal, and then in the future relying on natural gas. Both of which release greenhouse gasses and carbon dioxide.

From my perspective, there are two possible paths to solving this issue: either we restructure the grid, or we stabilize renewables while we make our energy transition. Due to the cost and scope of completely restructuring the grid, not to mention the political nightmare that is implicit in campaigning for the funds and the proposal in general, it seems easiest to create a stable transition. This is why it is crucial that we add stabilizing electricity plants throughout the grid. Whether that is in the form of our previously discussed forms of electricity generation: hydroelectric or nuclear, or in up and coming technologies like: geothermal, offshore wind, tidal, etc. If we interweave these electricity generators throughout the grid, we allow for a reliable source of stable energy. This is critical for areas that would otherwise struggle with only solar and wind. These should act as our stabilizing forces. Nuclear fission, although extremely controversial, is one of the only options for stabilizing the grid nation-wide. Bill Gates, in How To Avoid A Climate Disaster, writes, “Here’s the one-sentence case for nuclear power: It’s the only carbon-free energy source that can reliably deliver power day and night, through every season, almost anywhere on earth, that has been proven to work on a large scale,” (Gates, 2021). The United States is a huge and geographically diverse country. Wind and solar energy will not work across the nation as a blanket solution. Even hydroelectric power is geographically dependent, and with issues of drought and water-rights throughout America, it is also not a blanket solution. Nuclear energy, if done correctly, is a very widely deployable energy source which enjoys extremely high energy efficiency. It produces electricity in a manner that allows it to compete with fossil fuels in a clean manner, and thus we have to take it into consideration while we fight the extremely urgent problem of CO2 emissions. 

When we encounter parts of the grid which may be lacking in wind and solar potential, it would be especially prudent of us to consider these regions to require a different electricity source. That might require nuclear, geothermal, or hydroelectric support. There are many regions which do not enjoy the bountiful sun that is available to the southwestern United States, as we can see in the figure above from NREL. And there are just as many regions that do not see wind speeds on par with the Midwest or the coastlines. We should make sure that in allowing for pushing of solar and wind, that we are not also getting rid of nuclear plants until stability through other means are possible. Instead, we should focus our efforts into removing carbon-based fossil fuels such that we can mitigate the carbon emissions, because nuclear does not release carbon.

Of course, there are valid concerns with these forms of electricity production across different regions. For example, we should not focus on building nuclear plants on the southeastern coast on account of hurricane seasons and tropical weather risks. Although we have already done this, it has been known to result in tragedies like Fukushima which involved a nuclear meltdown that was triggered by a tsunami and earthquake. There is concern for using geothermal in regions where drilling can result in volcanic or tectonic disruption. There is difficulty when constructing dams for hydroelectric power and how that threatens inter-state relations over water supply related sensitivities. It is why the energy side of climate change mitigation  is not solvable by a single blanket solution.

Viewing the above figure, it’s very clear the United States operates on a patchworked electric grid. This figure shows all of the different electric regions, demonstrating the unnecessary divisions across the states. Assuming that the grid was to stay relatively similar in structure, it would make the most sense if we were to identify the available alternative resources in each region and add in stabilizing plants to mind the gap between renewables and fossil fuels. The U.S. grid is a poorly designed system which relies heavily on instant electricity production. Although this is only a minor problem with fossil fuels, we still see outages in extenuating circumstances, whether that be natural disasters, weather effects, or even an unexpected increase in demand on the electric grid. There needs to be a huge change in how we manage our electricity. 

In Conclusion: No Easy Fix

Additionally, all of this speaks to a much broader concern which I see as central: we need to stop marketing an easy solution to the climate crisis, and by extension to this energy issue. As soon as we oversimplify the issue, there are a huge amount of people that begin to push for the easiest solution instead of the correct one. As long as technology and electricity remain central to our nation’s functionality, we should consider technological literacy when voting our representatives into office. It is important that we consider problems as complex and critical as this one at the level which the problem necessitates. To oversimplify the issue will only harm our approach to a solution by pushing an “easy” fix instead of a correct one. Additionally, in jumping over critical details, we run the risk of breeding fear in those who do not understand the topic instead of a desire to fix the issue. With climate change, and electricity, it is common to hear extremely gloomy predictions for the future instead of calls to action. This is a solvable problem, but it will not make progress as long as we are paralyzed into inaction by the fear of the issue, instead we have to take action and work on the problem as it requires. As engineers, it is crucial that those of us going into energy are careful about what we are producing. It is important for us to understand that there is not always a one-size-fits-all solution to our problems. It is only through our diversity of solutions that we will be able to combat this issue.

However, the biggest takeaway from this issue is that engineering is one of the most important means to mitigate the harm done by climate change. When we discuss welfare, health and economics, there is more that comes from the solution of alternative energy than reducing fossil fuel emissions. Although that is my principle concern, it also requires consideration of the other ways which the introduction of alternative forms of energy might destabilize the grid, and what other kinds of problems that we are missing in the fine print. There is a call to combat climate change, but that does not mean that we are allowed to overlook some of the minor problems in favor of one major. If we approach this with an integrated grid that uses all of our cleanest forms of electricity, we stand to benefit in more ways than just stopping climate change. But if we do this incorrectly, we could suffer from extreme weather even further. The choice is ultimately that of the nation, which means that we have to be willing to speak for the solution that we believe in to gain enough favor for real change.

Works Cited

• Arthurs, L. (2021). Water, Energy and Environment: An Introduction to Earth Resources: University of Colorado Boulder: Geological & Atmospheric Sciences, GEOL 1150. McGraw-Hill Create.
• Gates, B. (2021). How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need. National Geographic Books.
• Nixon, B. (2023). Solar Panel Soiling [MS Thesis Defense]. University of Colorado, Boulder.
• .
• Relyea, R., & Friedland, A. (2015). Environmental Science for AP (2nd ed.). WH Freeman.