The Power of Solar

Tuesday, March 10, 2015

A New Type of Revolution in Latin America

Historically speaking the Sun has played a key role in shaping the Mesoamerican and South American aspects of pre-colonial culture and religion. From our earliest understanding of the regions ancient religions we have discovered a direct link between their beliefs and that of astronomy. The sun, being a key part of their understanding of their physical and spiritual world.

Following the colonization of the region, these ancient customs were all but lost. This genocide of both their people and their beliefs led to a great loss in our understanding of their society. One of the major beliefs that has been uncovered is that of the Mayan Fifth Sun.

The Mayan fifth sun was considered by many to mark the Mayan's belief in Armageddon. They however, could not be more incorrect. The Mayan Fifth Sun is not a period of death and destruction, but a re-birth of spirit and development. A change in composition and beliefs that marks the beginning of a new age. This re-birth can be considered a drastic change in the way Latin America has historically been viewed. December 21st, 2012, marked a new age for Latin America. That age is fueled by renewable energy.

The majority of Latin America lies in the Sun Belt Region of highest solar radiation, solar energy in this region is nothing short of overabundant. This factor, added to the regions growth under the yoke of non-renewable energy, shows the possibility for an incredible re-birth of providence and quality of life in these fossil fuel consuming societies.

In terms of Latin America, solar energy has the ability to stabilize and reconstruct the region into the beacon of pride it was before the European colonization. Its a way to feasibly end the reliance on the world energy market and begin to produce energy in Latin America, and not be reliant on foreign sources to dictate the price of energy.

The International Renewable Energy Agency, or IRENA, has recently found that, as of January 2015, renewable energy was shown to be more cost effective than Fossil Fuels. The ramifications of this finding are enormous, especially for the companies invested heavily in fossil fuels. This shift has been on the horizon for awhile, and oil companies have already reacted.

These oil companies are afraid of a future that isn't beholden to them for energy needs, and they should be. Countries around the world are rethinking their energy sources, and Latin America is set to lead the way.
According to the Inter-American Development Bank, in Latin America, 34 million people lack access to modern electricity services. Even more destructive to progress is that fossil fuel imports take up a sizable chunk of many Latin American countries budgets. This money could go back into the economy and produce jobs. How? Not by pouring money into foreign markets plagued with constant price increases and supply problems but instead investing in the new field of Solar energy.

Over the past hundred years, the cost of energy limited the ability of Latin American countries to reach their full potential. The new breakthroughs in renewable sources can eliminate that restriction and create potentially free, limitless energy. If you're thinking to yourself that relying on solar energy is economically unfeasible, just consider the following; the price of solar cells has fallen fifteen-fold since 1980 and shows no sign of slowing down.

Compounding that, the cost of solar PV has halved between 2010 and 2014 Its important to understand that as the price of solar falls, the price of non-renewable sources continue to grow. What this allows is a re-evaluation of what Latin American Countries can do for their population, to allow for a greener, prosperous future.

As IRENA states in their summery of findings, "any remaining perceptions that renewable power generation technologies are expensive or uncompetitive are at best outdated, and at worst a dangerous fallacy." Don't let an outdated perception of energy fuel a greater reliance on nonrenewable, environmentally dangerous, and costly sources. Think Green, in terms of energy and saved money.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

How The Global Economy Is Destroying Global Health

According to Lancet, and the Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors Study in 2013, One of the Top Three Risk Factors for global disease burden was Air Pollution. Only ahead of this was Smoking Tobacco and High Blood Pressure. For those of you who may not know what the Lancet is, it's one of the worlds leading medical journals. The Lancet was founded in 1823. Its an independent and non-affiliated scientific organization that is globally renouned for its findings and contributions. Every major article the lancet publishes is rigorously peer reviewed, with an acceptance rate of around 5% of all articles.

Lancet found that of all things to be afraid of, you're more likely to be affected by the air you breathe and the water you drink than almost anything else. According to this study, that breath of air you take in or the drop of water that hits your skin is more dangerous to you than that bus that nearly hit you, or the threat of terrorists. According to another finding by lancet, in 2010, 3.2 million people died of air pollution and a total of 76 million disability-adjusted life-years in 2010 were lost.

On top of that, the same study revealed that Pollutants, when exposed to infants, can significantly increase infant mortality rates. Infant morality rate, while improving, is showing trends that reflect the severity of this problem. Globally, it has been proven that air pollution is linked to birth defects in children as well as children being born per-maturely and born under-weight. Even industrialized countries are seeing an increase of underweight births, the United states, from 2003 to 2004, saw a rise in that figure to 7.7% of non-smoker births being underweight, All this in a country that has had access to the latest technology, most current medicine, and most highly trained doctors.

3.2 million deaths linked to air pollution is striking when compared to the same assessment taken in 1990, where the number was only 800,000. From 1990 to 2010 the number of listed deaths from air pollution quadrupled. Which means that today, you are four times more likely to die from air pollution than in 1990.

Why Haven't the countries of the world taken action?

The answer is they already did, but not in the way you would expect:

The Kyoto protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan on December 1997. It entered into force on the 16th of February 2005. The protocol seeks to limit the effect of industrializing countries pollution levels. In theory, the idea had a lot of merit.

The Protocol is still widely seen as an important first step, but unfortunately it has many loopholes and stops short in promoting real, substantial change. According to its website, the Kyoto Protocol, "... is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets." This public statement is both inaccurate and misleading as it hides the insincerity behind the initiatives actual function. That is to say, provide a legal means to purchase the ability to mass pollute under the guise of environmentalism.

To the press, and those who don't read into the details about the initiative, it seems to be a great leap forward in stemming the pollution crisis; Its not. There is one clause that has amazing repercussions in the Kyoto Protocol that was slipped in and hid from the general public. The Emissions trading clause. This clause, presents a substantial problem with the entire message behind what the Kyoto Protocol stands for.

2009 Image Source

It allows for countries that have emissions that are lower than the acceptable amount to sell their excess emission capabilities to countries that are over capacity. Thus allowing any country to over pollute and have no global repercussions or restrictions for their actions. It turns the ability to pollute into a commodity, that can be sold to any country with enough money. There's an entire organization, that was created under this treaty, to sell these new pollution bonds to developing countries.

The Protocol is widely seen as an important first step, but unfortunately it has many loopholes and stops short in promoting real, substantial change.

The Countries shown above, are those that have seen the largest increase in their GDP from 2010-2015. They also coincide with the earlier picture that shows the largest global polluters. Economic sanctions, like trading international emissions, does nothing to impede this sectors growth. The lack of real accountability leads to the simple economic feasibility of expanding with fossil fuels over economically neutral practices.

Unfortunately, this even-responsibility ideal of has bred counterproductive measures. One of these such measures is a clause in the Protocol that allows for countries that have emissions that are lower than the acceptable amount to sell their excess emission capabilities to countries that are over capacity. Thus allowing for high polluting countries to over pollute and have no repercussions for their actions. This process, called International Emissions Trading defeats the greater purpose of limiting emissions, allowing for substantial exceptions.

A key aspect of the treaty is the composition of its members and their contributions. As Highlighted in the United Nations website,
“During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period, Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020; however, the composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different from the first.”(Source)

So to clarify, Yes, there was a shift in the amount of CO2 produced by the member states within the target timeline. However the composition of the member states changed; meaning that any state that wasn't going to meet the emissions guidelines simply left the agreement, nullifying the entire reason for the Protocol. That's the international equivalent of flipping over the Monopoly board during family game night because you were losing.

The End Result:

A huge problem with the Protocol is that the United States, the second biggest polluter in the world, refuses to ratify the initiative. This is despite public opinion on the matter; which clearly shows United States Citizens understand the problem. The picture above is not from some industrializing country in Asia, its of the Detroit Marathon Refinery which over-pollutes, even in terms of American Standards due to the various loopholes in our policy.

All these reasons as well as the global focus on growth over environmental feasibility lead to the final analysis. As citizens we are only able to control so much, and with the recent impediments on our relative voice compared to the ultra-wealthy we were made even weaker. The United States public opinion is already against promoting practices that contribute to climate change. Realistically speaking, the only reason why we continue to promote these outdated and inefficient practices over their renewable counterparts is due to the power of special interest groups.
As a nation we need to speak up and act. Until we do, our collective goals will be sidestepped in lieu of the ultra-wealthy.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Power Transition Theory and Solar Energy

How the Energy Battle is Going to Play Out:

In International Relations and Affairs there is one predominant theory that both frightens and fascinates those who come across it. The Power Transition Theory in International Affairs attempts to categorically trace the historical outcomes of different global and regional shifts of power between two or more states. The theory, at its basis, finds that in the majority of cases, as one power declines and another power rises, conflict is inevitable. How this conflict presents itself is the subject of much debate. In the Cold War between Soviet Union and the United States, that conflict was predominantly economic and political, with some aspects of ground warfare.

This theory is currently being used to analyze how the United States is dealing with the rise of China.

In this post-globalization world, the majority of actions that affect global affairs have to do with non-state actors. Non-state actors are both political actors; unaffiliated militant groups (Terrorists and militias) and economic actors; multinational corporations and transactions between states and corporations, to name a few.

The Energy Crisis:

In the next few years the world will see a shift in the public image of renewable and non-renewable energies alike. This shift in both public opinion and access to new sources of energy will be the result of an intense battle that even now is raging. This battle, similar to that of the cold war, or the looming economic shift that may be a result of a second world superpower on the rise, can be explained through the use of the Power Transition Theory.

The two major actors in this battle will not, as historically seen, be states, but rather the alternate forms of energy sources available to the general public. The two major sources that will be either condemned or applauded, depending on your political background will be coal and solar energy. This analysis is based around the current availability of coal and its ability to generate cleaner energy through new sources of refinement. The solar choice is difficult because the entire field of renewable energy technology is expanding exponentially. However, given the recent breakthrough in energy storage technology by both Toyota and Tesla, its poised to overtake other sources of renewable energy as highlighted in a recent post.

The United States, as of 2013, receives roughly 90.5% of its energy from non-renewable sources. However, the growth in output from solar energy doubled in the United States from 2013 to 2014. Granted, diminishing returns shows that figure to be exponentially more difficult to achieve as the sector increases in size, just as 200% of 1 is 2 and 200% of 2 is 4. That growth is inherently unsustainable long term, as reflected in the graph below.

However, that growth shows no signs of slowing down in terms of short term. What this means is that while you're not going to see an overnight change in your neighborhood's roofs surface area solar panel usage, over the next ten years you are going to see a lot more about solar energy. The reason being is that non-renewable sources are scared, and for good reason. As expressed in a past post of mine, energy consumption at its basis is a zero-sum gain.

Realistically speaking, everything that the renewable energy sector gains is taken away from the non-renewable profits. This isn't a huge problem now, the price of oil is staggeringly low, but the law of diminishing returns can also be used to assess the access to oil. To meet world energy demands, new, expensive ways to access oil are becoming more common. As can be seen though to access these reserves is size-ably more expensive as the historical alternatives. Oil, gas, and coal being non-renewable are eventually not going to be feasible in terms of energy demand. This growing demand on a limited resource will just serve to expiate the process of consumption, and as the supply of these resources will fall, the demand will rise. In this realistic and unavoidable future, the answer lies in renewable energy.

On top of all of this the current price of oil is unsustainable. Its a mixture of political retribution of the country of Iran from Saudi Arabia and the United States for Iran's Nuclear Energy research, and the rise of the American fracking industry. This attempt at strangling United States oil and Iran's Nuclear energy is costing Saudi Arabia an incredible amount of money and is at its heart a very short term operation.

So What Does This Mean for the Average American Consumer?

The price of gas is going to go up. There's no doubt in that. Unfortunately, that's simply the nature of a non-renewable source of energy, in contrast however, the price of solar energy and other renewable energy sources is plummeting year by year.

Here's the reflective price for that energy:

Translation: If you buy solar panels today you will have the most return for your investment in solar history. The same cannot be said for non-renewable sources. Unfortunately, unlike solar energy, the future for fossil fuels doesn't look to bright.

A showdown is going to happen between the powerful coal, oil, and gas corporations and that of renewable energy. At the end of the day, with this type of situation, the future is clear. Renewable energy is happening, for the benefit of mankind as a whole, and their respective wallets.

For more information on how/why you should switch to solar energy, go here.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)