According to the Department of Energy’s 2011 Critical Materials Strategy Summary (http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS_2011_Summary.pdf ), shortages of several crucial materials has proven to be a real concern when it comes to the future of green energy. Some of the materials of concern are Lanthanum, Terbium, Yttrium, Dysprosium, Praseodymium, Cerium, Neodymium, and Europium. These 8 materials effect the production of wind turbines, photovoltaic films, vehicles, and lighting. According to this assessment based on supply risk and their importance to clean energy, the main elements of concern are: Yttrium, Neodymium, Dysprosium, Europium, and Terbium. These five materials are of major importance to all but the production of photovoltaic cells. Because of their short supply, the prices of these materials are incredibly instable.
This begs the question of just how stable of an economy would a “green” economy be? It’s been reported that due to supplies, the prices of some of these materials could increase tenfold. Plus who’s to say how long those supplies would last or if they’d even be capable of keeping up with the demand.
Green engineering is going to be a huge topic of discussion within the next several years. I feel like there could be so many possibilities to come from further research into green techniques. It is very important to consider things like how long will they last and the expense of becoming more green. These are two major reasons why green engineering hasn't already taken earth by storm. I think it is best to combine a little bit of both worlds. Some green techniques with some older ways. We don't want all of those eight materials used for green engineering techniques to be gone before we can really figure out how to utilize them to their fullest potential. I am very interested to see what else is to come for green engineering!!
ReplyDeleteI think as a society we are getting closer and closer to fully sustainable design, but most of us truly believe that we have already achieved fully sustainable design. Besides the fact that wind and solar energy aren't exactly the most productive forms of energy, you have shed light on the fact that even what most of us consider sustainable aren't even actually truly sustainable at all. Is it right that our government is trying to invest so much money in to these "sustainable" energy companies when we haven't yet found a way to make them efficient or truly sustainable?
ReplyDeleteHaving studied this in some depth, I can tell you now that it's going to be many years before "green" technology even comes close to the economic feasibility of current power production. Currently, wind and solar are simply not efficient methods of harvesting energy... granted, the source that they draw from is free (can't put a price on sunlight or wind), but the mechanical energy from wind turbines is highly inefficient (due to all those moving parts, friction, and other heat losses) and solar plants require an extremely large section of land before they begin to produce meaningful amounts of energy. Both are horrible eyesores. Ever been to California? Entire mountains are covered with those windmills... not exactly the scenic, "green" view that is pushed on us. (And as a note, I think I recall reading that solar cells actually aren't good for the environment. The acid baths and extra chemicals required to treat the cells are almost impossible to dispose of... which is the same issue nuclear energy has.)
ReplyDeleteIf the government is actually interested in investing in green energy, they need to make a couple changes to their approach. Either they need to focus their investments on making "micro" solar panels that can easily be spread on the roofs of tall buildings in cities, or they need to turn to hydroelectric power. Wind is pretty much useless; that pet-project needs to get dumped. Small solar panels are already making some promising leaps; the continued development of graphene might just lead to a breakthrough... heck, even all of our windows could be covered in translucent solar panels and we wouldn't notice! And hydroelectic is so much better than wind because water is denser than wind and - when pushed through a dam - can transfer far more energy.
Problem is, true environmentalism is constantly contradicting itself until the only "true" solution would be to execute half the population of the planet. They want "green" technology that doesn't push greenhouse gases into the environment, so they turn to half-baked alternatives like wind power. Except in order to build enough wind turbines to make any meaningful output, you'd have to cover entire mountain ranges... which, of course, environmentalists oppose because it's a "blight" upon the ecosystem and natural beauty of the mountains. We have the exact same problem with acres of solar panels, or damming up a river for hydroelectric. We as a people at some point will need to decide... do we care more about cost efficiency, or keeping the planet beautiful? And, if we truly care about cost, then the best solution is to stay with what works... that is, oils, gases, and nuclear energy (and we get a more stable economy to boot). And if we want the planet to stay beautiful and prevent global warming... well, good luck. Odds are you'll never be satisfied.
I think you guys might have missed Daniel's point! It's not a discussion of whether we should embrace green engineering, but a discussion also of the dwindling supply of the precious rare earth elements that are available to construct the various green energy producing machines/components.
ReplyDeleteIs that right, Daniel, or am I off base?