The Benefits and Consequences of Alternative Energy

     As environmental awareness becomes the limelight of our lives, alternative energy becomes increasingly more prevalent. Sources for alternative energy include solar power, wind power, and non-petroleum sources for cars. However, alternative energy sources also come with drawbacks, such as a high economic cost and lower power yield. The controversy around alternative energy is more focused on the economic consequences than on the environmental benefits. Those who support lower taxes and fewer regulations often favor conventional energy sources such as petroleum and coal; those who favor more regulations and stronger environmental programs favor alternative energy sources.

     The history of alternative energy is especially pertinent to today’s issues. While some issues regarding alternative energy are only allowed by today’s progressing technology, others have been controversial topics since the day man discovered fire. One of the first successful forms of alternative energy was in 1938 when William Robert Grove’s hydrogen fuel cell. Grove accomplished this by reacting hydrogen and oxygen to yield water and more importantly, energy. As the United States expanded westward during the mid-1800s, the windmill became a popular method to pump water out of the ground to power the steam engines in locomotives. In 1862, after the Civil War had broken out, President Lincoln imposed a Spirits Tax to help finance the war. This thwarted the ethanol fuel industry, which did not reemerge until 1906 when Theodore Roosevelt asked Congress to lift Lincoln’s Spirit Tax. As technology continued to advance and the United States energy needs increased, John D. Rockefeller established Standard Oil, thus establishing petroleum as a major energy sources in the United States. Standard Oil nearly monopolized the petroleum market within a decade, making petroleum “the primary energy source not only in the U.S., but for societies around the world” (Historical Timeline – Alternative Energy). At the turn of the century, the French government unveiled a car that ran on vegetable oil. However, the booming petroleum market cast that idea into the background because people favored cheaper and more readily available petroleum over vegetable oil. This proved true when the Lucas Gusher in Texas spewed out over 850,00 gallons over 9 days. This sudden discovery of oil caused the price of oil to drop from $2 to $0.03 per barrel (Historical Timeline – Alternative Energy). By 1911, the US Government had dissolved Standard Oil due to its monopolization of the petroleum market. This is yet another intersection between alternative energy and its economic impact. From this, modern alternative energy production was born. This even gave birth to infrastructures such as the first geothermal power plant in 1921, the first commercial wind turbine in 1927, the Hoover Dam in 1935, and the creation of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946. By 1950, petroleum had become the most used fuel in the United States. The second half of the 20th century provided the technological breakthrough that gave us modern alternative energy. The space race demanded a small but effective power source, so the United States started using solar cells on its satellites. The atomic energy research from World War II allowed the United States to build nuclear plants in a safe manner, many of which still exist today. Alternative energy was on the rise and petroleum started to get a bad reputation from events like the Santa Barbara Oil Spill in 1969. In 1973, OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) announced an embargo against the United States (Historical Timeline – Alternative Energy). This cast a bad light on petroleum and showed how alternative energy is a viable energy source. By then, there was great dissent between those who supported conventional coal and oil and those who supported alternative energy. This controversy is especially apparent today as the environment continues to degrade at an alarming rate and both sides are having trouble reaching a compromise.

     Just this past October, President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney debated over the benefits and consequences of alternative energy. Obama and Romney have very different views on alternative energy production. Romney, a businessman, favors traditional sources of energy and fewer regulations. If elected, he planned to increase the domestic production of hydrocarbons such as coal, oil, and natural gas. The coal industry is declining rapidly because many people favor natural gas over coal because of the smaller environmental footprint, and because of a ban put forth by the EPA prohibiting the construction of coal production units. President Obama, on the other hand, favors raising taxes to fund environmental regulations. According to journalist Robert Bryce, “The Obama administration has lavished billions of dollars in subsidies, loan guarantees, and other measures on alternative-energy programs, which have included everything from electric cars…to batteries and wind energy” (Sarachan). Taxpayer money funds the bulk of such programs. Romney has made it clear that he favors lower taxes and fewer government programs; he said that he will “eliminate the production tax credit, the 2.2 cents-per-kilowatt-hour subsidy given to wind-energy producers” (Sarachan). The two presidential candidates focused on the economics behind alternative energy rather than the environmental benefits. Award-winning environmental author Paul Gipe notes that Germany has stopped producing energy in coal and nuclear facilities in favor of wind, solar, and biomass energy. This has hurt the workers of coal and nuclear facilities, which explains why “the fossil-fuel and nuclear lobbies know they are in a dying industry and they’re determined to hold on as long as they can” (Sarachan). Romney made it clear that he would stop such programs and revert back to coal and hydrocarbon energy, whereas Obama is in favor of more environmental regulations.

     Compared to other developed countries, the United States is actually pretty good with alternative energy sources. According to Bryce, the United States “produces twice as much biofuel as any other country” and produces “so much corn ethanol that it is exporting significant quantities of that fuel to Brazil” (Sarachan). Bryce also favors nuclear energy. He explains, “renewable energy gets a lot of attention from the Green/Left, but it cannot provide the scale of electricity that the worlds needs. Nuclear can. Is it a perfect solution to our energy needs? No. But then there is no perfect solution” (Sarachan). There is a lot of potential for alternative energy in the United States, but it has yet to act on that potential. According to Gipe, “we are not yet a ‘developed’ country when it comes to renewables...we lost leadership in the late 1980’s and have never gotten it back” (Sarachan). Other countries are far more developed in their alternative energy sources. Gripe provides evidence on this claim:

Germany gets 20% of its electricity from renewables today—and only a very small part of that is old hydro. Denmark gets 41% of its electricity from renewables and that’s all from new renewables. Portugal gets up to 50% of its electricity from renewables of which half of that is from wind energy alone. And it does not stop there. Demmark’s goal is 100% of its “energy”—so not just electricity—by 2013 is to come from renewables. Scotland’s goal is 100% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. So, no, the U.S. is not in the same renewable league as “developed” countries.

     It’s clear that the United States is lagging behind other developed countries when it comes to alternative energy. Environmental reporter Amy Harder suggests that this is due to the fact that Congress “has not enacted any major policy that would provide a long-term incentive to deploy alternative energy” (Sarachan). The technology is there, but Congress has not provided any economic incentive to use that technology. This is where the heart of the debate lies. The United States has the infrastructure to be as “developed” as Germany, Denmark, and Portugal, but what it lacks is the political incentive to use that infrastructure.

     To reach a solution, according to Bryce, the government “should be focused not on picking winners with subsidies, but on research and development” (Sarachan). []. Gripe suggests another option. He suggests that individuals should be able to create our own renewable energy plants. He furthers this by suggesting, “we don’t need the government…or any other utility to build or invest in renewable energy” (Sarachan). This idea, Gripe explains, scares a lot of people. The idea of individuals making their own energy instead of power companies scares people, according to Gripe. Romney and his supporters would likely argue that this would hurt the economy. Harder, however, points out “despite the politicization of renewable energy, most Democrats and most Republicans do agree that government should provide basic research and development for alternative energy and advanced technologies for more established energy resources like fossil fuels” (Sarachan). In recent years, however, Republicans have withdrawn from this and favored lower taxes over government research. This is where the line is drawn—at this point, the United States needs to find a compromise between saving the environment using renewable and alternative energy and saving the economy by supporting existing infrastructures.

     The controversy is clear—there are those who support a tax increase to fund alternative energy research and development, and there are those who support existing hydrocarbon industries and prefer keeping those instead of raising taxes. Romney is part of the latter group; Obama is part of the former. Alternative energy was an especially combustible topic during the past election, as the gap between the two sides grows larger and larger. Both sides realize that Mother Nature’s clock is ticking away and that time is of the essence. There are hopes for a compromise in the coming years, when both sides realize that there is no perfect solution to our energy problem.

Works Cited

"Historical Timeline - Alternative Energy." ProCon.org. N.p., 23 Apr. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Sarachan, Sydney. "Ask the Experts: Alternative Energy." PBS. PBS, 05 Oct. 2012. Web. 06 Feb. 2013.

Shah, Abhishek. "Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy – A Detailed Explanation." Green World Investor. N.p., 4 Apr. 2011. Web. 01 Feb. 2013.