Have you ever taken a moment to think about the true cost of energy to the average American? According to the Council on Economic Relations the average percentage of a products cost from energy is 65% for non food items and as much as 80% for food products.
Why you may ask? Well think of it in these terms. Once again on average for every product we use and consume, energy costs paid by a factor 4-6 times. This is actually logical when you think about supply chains and how they work. First there is the cost of mining or securing the fossil fuels. Next there is the cost of producing or manufacturing the product, then the cost from wholesalers transporting the item to their facilities, then the energy cost from distributors and packaging, next the cost of transportation to the local market or grocery and finally the cost of you actually going to the store to buy the products. Every segment of the supply chain has their own built in energy costs which are passed on to the consumer.
Next think about the cost in maintaining the ability to have access to these fossil fuels. One of the most obvious is the cost of maintaining a military presence in places like the Middle East for oil. Here is a good example. Currently the Fifth Fleet of the United States Navy is responsible for naval forces in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and coast off East Africa as far south as Kenya. These are the people who insure free passage of the seas for worldwide oil transport. Additionally factor in the cost of our military in places like Iraq (second largest oil reserves worldwide) and Afghanistan (strategic area for controlling Middle East). Yes there is the threat from terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, but let’s face it if we did not maintain such a large military presence in the Middle East would groups like this care about the United States ?
Additionally factor in the health costs of burning fossil fuel from air pollution. Fine particle pollution: causes premature death in people with heart and lung disease, accounting for more deaths in the U.S. each year than either drunk driving or homicide (23,600); triggers thousands of heart attacks each year; worsens respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, triggering over 20,000 asthma attacks per year in Indiana; increases hospital admissions, emergency room visits and clinic visits for respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases; causes lung function changes, especially in children and people living with lung diseases such as asthma; causes changes in heart rate variability and irregular heartbeat; is associated with the development of chronic respiratory disease in children.
Then there is the effect of fossil fuels on water. Pollution of water resources has a wide range of adverse effects on humans and the environment. Water sources are contaminated from acid rain. According to Greenstudentu.com. over two thirds of "U.S. estuaries and bays are severely degraded because of nitrogen and phosphorous pollution." The EPA sets emission standards to attempt to regulate the dangers of water pollution, but water pollution presents a serious hazard to the United States. Contaminated water affects plants, animal life and human beings.
Finally the current and future cost of Global Climate change. The burning of fossil fuels contributes to the buildup of greenhouse gases, which is regarded as the leading factor in climate change and global warming. The largest contributor to greenhouse gases is the burning of fossil fuels. Automobile use in the United States is one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gases. The detrimental consequences are a reduction in the ozone layer and warmer temperatures. A reduction in the ozone layer threatens human health, plant growth and the marine eco system. It contributes to rising sea levels, which threatens coastal regions.
Add to this Ocean Acidification Over the last decade, scientists have discovered that this excess CO2 is actually changing the chemistry of the sea and proving harmful for many forms of marine life. This process is known as ocean acidification.
A more acidic ocean could wipe out species; disrupt the food web and impact fishing, tourism and any other human endeavor that relies on the sea. The change is happening fast -- and it will take fast action to slow or stop it. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed 530 billion tons of CO2, triggering a 30 percent increase in ocean acidity.
Before people started burning coal and oil, ocean pH had been relatively stable for the previous 20 million years. But researchers predict that if carbon emissions continue at their current rate, ocean acidity will more than double by 2100. The polar regions will be the first to experience changes. Projections show that the Southern Ocean around Antarctica will actually become corrosive by 2050. Meaning that the entire ocean food chain could collapse and along with it 3/4’s of all life on earth.
So here is my point- when you think about all the financial, military, health, and environmental costs of burning fossil fuels it becomes apparent to anyone who cares that the cost of burning fossil fuels is much higher than we all think.
In fact it’s so high it could cost us our entire planet.
That’s why it is up to people like you and I to make these concerns a major focus of our society and government before it is too late.
Let’s get busy shifters.
Fossil fuels such as coal and oil provide 95 percent of the world's energy, but supplies are finite and dwindling. Using fossil fuels has affected all living creatures on Earth and has caused a global energy and climate crisis, political and social problems, and wars.
E3Wise
Sources
United States Department of Energy
United States Council on Economic Relations
National Renewable Defence Council
Environmental Defence Fund
Oceana
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
Energy- Understanding the True Cost of America’s Fossil Fuel Addiction.
Started by E3 wise, Jan 09 2012 07:08 PM
energy cost fossil fuels ocean acidification
5 replies to this topic
#3
Posted 10 January 2012 - 12:37 PM
E3Wise:
Hm.
I think I'm generally aware of the impact fossil fuels and global/warming/climate change and the need to change business-as-usual, but....
Your post starts with saying that the direct monetary cost of the things we buy is between 65 and 80% attributed to the cost of energy, largely fossil fuel energy.
You then go on to point out non-monetary costs associated with fossil fuels.
Renewable energy isn't monetarily less costly more than fossil fuels, it's more costly.. That 65 to 80% will increase as renewables replace fossil fuels, while non-monetary costs go down.
Regarding the non monetary costs, quoting: " Automobile use in the United States is one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gases. The detrimental consequences are a reduction in the ozone layer and warmer temperatures."
Ozone layer depletion and greenhouse gasses aren't connected, to the best of my knowledge. Ozone layer depletion is attributed to CFC's in the upper atmosphere, with no connection to carbon dioxide or methane, the greenhouse gasses of major concern. What sort of reference do you have?
...."entire ocean food chain could collapse and along with it 3/4’s of all life on earth."
The ocean acidification bit, again could you provide reference? Especially that 3/4 part. Preferably a reference by a scientist. .
What is meant by " In fact it’s so high it could cost us our entire planet. "? The planet itself will remain. Wipe out all life? I don't recall that expectation expressed by any climate scientist. What is it you do mean?
In the context of climate change, I usually don't emphasize that fossil fuels are finite and dwindling.
Some people can take that to mean that as long as we're going to run out soon anyway, we might as well go ahead and use them up, then we won't have to concern ourselves about fossil fuel CO2 emissions any more. That might well be true of petroleum, but not coal and not tarsands and other non-conventional fossil petroleum substitutes.
Hm.
I think I'm generally aware of the impact fossil fuels and global/warming/climate change and the need to change business-as-usual, but....
Your post starts with saying that the direct monetary cost of the things we buy is between 65 and 80% attributed to the cost of energy, largely fossil fuel energy.
You then go on to point out non-monetary costs associated with fossil fuels.
Renewable energy isn't monetarily less costly more than fossil fuels, it's more costly.. That 65 to 80% will increase as renewables replace fossil fuels, while non-monetary costs go down.
Regarding the non monetary costs, quoting: " Automobile use in the United States is one of the most significant contributors to greenhouse gases. The detrimental consequences are a reduction in the ozone layer and warmer temperatures."
Ozone layer depletion and greenhouse gasses aren't connected, to the best of my knowledge. Ozone layer depletion is attributed to CFC's in the upper atmosphere, with no connection to carbon dioxide or methane, the greenhouse gasses of major concern. What sort of reference do you have?
...."entire ocean food chain could collapse and along with it 3/4’s of all life on earth."
The ocean acidification bit, again could you provide reference? Especially that 3/4 part. Preferably a reference by a scientist. .
What is meant by " In fact it’s so high it could cost us our entire planet. "? The planet itself will remain. Wipe out all life? I don't recall that expectation expressed by any climate scientist. What is it you do mean?
In the context of climate change, I usually don't emphasize that fossil fuels are finite and dwindling.
Some people can take that to mean that as long as we're going to run out soon anyway, we might as well go ahead and use them up, then we won't have to concern ourselves about fossil fuel CO2 emissions any more. That might well be true of petroleum, but not coal and not tarsands and other non-conventional fossil petroleum substitutes.
#4
Posted 10 January 2012 - 07:55 PM
I really appreciate your feedback posting and so to futher the discussion I just wanted to respond. Thanks for asking questions.
Ok let’s start from the top- At $82.00 US Wind becomes cheaper than oil at $88.00 Solar does also and at $93.00 Hydrogen – Oil today- 01/10/2012 West Texas Intermediate for February dipped 25 cents to $101.31 a barrel. Brent North Sea crude for delivery in February sank 61 cents to $112.45 a barrel in London.
DOE estimate for future cost 2015 project mass production of alternative energy systems at $73.00 Wind, $79.00 Solar, and $83.00 Hydrogen so I am sorry but alternative energy is cheaper today even without incentives. On the subject of incentives these are given to make American producers comparable to foreign manufactures and promote adoption and development from Local in my case American Sources instead of say Middle Eastern sources.
#2
Yes CFC’s and HCFC are primary causes of ozone depletion; however other chemicals produced by burning fossil fuels react and deplete ozone. So answer this question- What ozone depleting chemical was not included in the Montreal Protocol? Answer- Nitrous oxide (N2O)
The combustion of fossil fuels produces emissions of various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO),oxides of nitrogen (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and sulphur dioxide (SO2). In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road add up to a planet-wide problem.
Science News.org - By Janet Raloff Web edition : Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Nitrous oxide fingered as monster ozone slayer.
Calculations by a trio of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo., now indicate that each molecule of N2O is almost one-fiftieth as effective at depleting ozone as is CFC-11.
Which may not sound like much — except it is, the NOAA scientists emphasize. Owing to its roughly 100-year survival time in the atmosphere (a lifespan comparable to CFCs) and the huge quantities released each year, N2O stands poised to become a potent player in the thinning of global stratospheric ozone. Indeed, “We found that if you look ahead, N2O will remain the largest ozone-depleting emissions for the rest of the century,” notes team leader A.R. Ravishankara.
New data being compiled by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) has been to this point backing up these assertions by measuring experiments measure naturally-occurring microwave thermal emission from the limb (edge) of Earth's atmosphere to remotely sense vertical profiles of atmospheric gases, temperature, pressure, and cloud ice. The overall objective of these experiments is to provide information that will help improve our understanding of Earth's atmosphere and global change.
Moving on to #3 Ocean Acidification- National Resources Defense Council has what I think is some of the most comprehensive scientific testing on Ocean Acidification- I suggest you refer to the documentary Acid Test which compiles of 46 of the world’s leading scientist on this subject. Or if you prefer- Article in Journal Nature titled- Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms.- James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3…
But to save time think of it like this Plankton and Krill make up the base of the ocean food chain, if acidity levels get much higher their cell walls will be destroyed meaning that all life not base on hydrothermal vent- estimated at roughly 25% of life in the oceans today will collapse, thus 75% or ¾ of the oceans food chain collapse. Once again check out Acid test or the article listed above.
Now about the planet- There is a reason why scientists have begun to refer to this time as the 6th great mass extinction. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year — which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this “Sixth Extinction” — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.
You do the math –yes the planet will go on but my point is that whether you believe in God, Evolution, Karma, the Force or whatever it sure is a damn shame man can’t figure out he is destroying the biosphere of this planet and that we have the ability to stop it now.
As far as fossil fuels being finite, well when you consider there are 138 major product categories derived from oil alone- we really need to start using them for more important things than just energy. As far as coal and tar sands well that just a faster way to play Russian roulette with our planet and since it’s the only one we have right now I think we better get on the stick and try to save it.
Face it add up all the costs and our fossil fuel addiction and the fact that potentially it could cost us everything and I think the cost is too high- financially, socially and morally.
E3Wise
Ok let’s start from the top- At $82.00 US Wind becomes cheaper than oil at $88.00 Solar does also and at $93.00 Hydrogen – Oil today- 01/10/2012 West Texas Intermediate for February dipped 25 cents to $101.31 a barrel. Brent North Sea crude for delivery in February sank 61 cents to $112.45 a barrel in London.
DOE estimate for future cost 2015 project mass production of alternative energy systems at $73.00 Wind, $79.00 Solar, and $83.00 Hydrogen so I am sorry but alternative energy is cheaper today even without incentives. On the subject of incentives these are given to make American producers comparable to foreign manufactures and promote adoption and development from Local in my case American Sources instead of say Middle Eastern sources.
#2
Yes CFC’s and HCFC are primary causes of ozone depletion; however other chemicals produced by burning fossil fuels react and deplete ozone. So answer this question- What ozone depleting chemical was not included in the Montreal Protocol? Answer- Nitrous oxide (N2O)
The combustion of fossil fuels produces emissions of various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), carbon monoxide (CO),oxides of nitrogen (NOx), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), and sulphur dioxide (SO2). In cities across the globe, the personal automobile is the single greatest polluter, as emissions from a billion vehicles on the road add up to a planet-wide problem.
Science News.org - By Janet Raloff Web edition : Thursday, August 27th, 2009
Nitrous oxide fingered as monster ozone slayer.
Calculations by a trio of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo., now indicate that each molecule of N2O is almost one-fiftieth as effective at depleting ozone as is CFC-11.
Which may not sound like much — except it is, the NOAA scientists emphasize. Owing to its roughly 100-year survival time in the atmosphere (a lifespan comparable to CFCs) and the huge quantities released each year, N2O stands poised to become a potent player in the thinning of global stratospheric ozone. Indeed, “We found that if you look ahead, N2O will remain the largest ozone-depleting emissions for the rest of the century,” notes team leader A.R. Ravishankara.
New data being compiled by NASA’s Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) has been to this point backing up these assertions by measuring experiments measure naturally-occurring microwave thermal emission from the limb (edge) of Earth's atmosphere to remotely sense vertical profiles of atmospheric gases, temperature, pressure, and cloud ice. The overall objective of these experiments is to provide information that will help improve our understanding of Earth's atmosphere and global change.
Moving on to #3 Ocean Acidification- National Resources Defense Council has what I think is some of the most comprehensive scientific testing on Ocean Acidification- I suggest you refer to the documentary Acid Test which compiles of 46 of the world’s leading scientist on this subject. Or if you prefer- Article in Journal Nature titled- Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms.- James C. Orr1, Victoria J. Fabry2, Olivier Aumont3…
But to save time think of it like this Plankton and Krill make up the base of the ocean food chain, if acidity levels get much higher their cell walls will be destroyed meaning that all life not base on hydrothermal vent- estimated at roughly 25% of life in the oceans today will collapse, thus 75% or ¾ of the oceans food chain collapse. Once again check out Acid test or the article listed above.
Now about the planet- There is a reason why scientists have begun to refer to this time as the 6th great mass extinction. As long ago as 1993, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson estimated that Earth is currently losing something on the order of 30,000 species per year — which breaks down to the even more daunting statistic of some three species per hour. Some biologists have begun to feel that this biodiversity crisis — this “Sixth Extinction” — is even more severe, and more imminent, than Wilson had supposed.
You do the math –yes the planet will go on but my point is that whether you believe in God, Evolution, Karma, the Force or whatever it sure is a damn shame man can’t figure out he is destroying the biosphere of this planet and that we have the ability to stop it now.
As far as fossil fuels being finite, well when you consider there are 138 major product categories derived from oil alone- we really need to start using them for more important things than just energy. As far as coal and tar sands well that just a faster way to play Russian roulette with our planet and since it’s the only one we have right now I think we better get on the stick and try to save it.
Face it add up all the costs and our fossil fuel addiction and the fact that potentially it could cost us everything and I think the cost is too high- financially, socially and morally.
E3Wise
#6
Posted 11 January 2012 - 10:44 PM
E3 wise:
1 "At $82.00 US Wind becomes cheaper than oil ...."
I don't understand. Wind generated electricity cheaper than oil generated electricity? Or wind charged electric car cheaper to drive than gasoline car? Something else?
"DOE estimate for future cost 2015 project mass production of alternative energy systems at $73.00 Wind, $79.00 Solar, and $83.00 Hydrogen so I am sorry but alternative energy is cheaper today even without incentives"
What will the $73 buy? A nameplate kilowatt? A kilowatt-hour? Maybe a link to the DOE material you are referring to....
2 Yes nitrous oxide is an ozone layer depleting gas, but most of it does not come from fossil fuel combustion. See http://www.epa.gov/n...de/sources.html
3 Maybe I'm just not tolerant enough.
I viewed Acid Test. It was well done. Didn't seem exaggerated, goes along with what I've read about. I didn't see the 3/4 bit there. Looked at the abstract of the Nature article. Didn't see the 3/4 there.
Regarding your "estimated at roughly 25% of life in the oceans today will collapse, thus 75% or ¾ of the oceans food chain collapse," I don't follow. I don't get the "thus." If you can, explain or provide a link.
"But to save time think of it like this Plankton and Krill make up the base of the ocean food chain, if acidity levels get much higher their cell walls will be destroyed'
Not cell walls.
The main difficulty with ocean acidification is that calcite and aragonite, forms of calcium carbonate, which forms shells and some other parts of some organisms tends to dissolve more easily. Not all organisms have calcite/aragonite parts, but enough do so any significant dissolution is of concern. Enough do so that if there were major mortality then ocean ecosystems would be in trouble. Some common kinds of phytoplankton like coccolithphores have calcite parts, other common phytoplankton like diatoms don't. For zooplankton, krill don't have calcite parts while pteropods do. Oysters do and fish don't.
How much affected? My understanding is that it's hard to say. Experiments have shown that some species of coccolithophore can tolerate only a small pH change while others have considerable tolerance.
Exactly what will actually happen with continued business-as-usual CO2 emissions, nobody can say with certainty yet, except that we won't like it, or our decendants won't.
"Lose the planet" to me says that everybody's going to die, nobody left because there's no place to live.
An exaggeration.
(....we hope... try http://www.columbia....entations.shtml and choose the 2008 December presentation, scroll to near the end)
Mess up our planet enough so that our decendants revile us? Sure, unless we reduce business-as-usual fossil fuel use a lot, and get to it soon enough. Mess up our planet enough so a major human population crash is assured? Maybe.
1 "At $82.00 US Wind becomes cheaper than oil ...."
I don't understand. Wind generated electricity cheaper than oil generated electricity? Or wind charged electric car cheaper to drive than gasoline car? Something else?
"DOE estimate for future cost 2015 project mass production of alternative energy systems at $73.00 Wind, $79.00 Solar, and $83.00 Hydrogen so I am sorry but alternative energy is cheaper today even without incentives"
What will the $73 buy? A nameplate kilowatt? A kilowatt-hour? Maybe a link to the DOE material you are referring to....
2 Yes nitrous oxide is an ozone layer depleting gas, but most of it does not come from fossil fuel combustion. See http://www.epa.gov/n...de/sources.html
3 Maybe I'm just not tolerant enough.
I viewed Acid Test. It was well done. Didn't seem exaggerated, goes along with what I've read about. I didn't see the 3/4 bit there. Looked at the abstract of the Nature article. Didn't see the 3/4 there.
Regarding your "estimated at roughly 25% of life in the oceans today will collapse, thus 75% or ¾ of the oceans food chain collapse," I don't follow. I don't get the "thus." If you can, explain or provide a link.
"But to save time think of it like this Plankton and Krill make up the base of the ocean food chain, if acidity levels get much higher their cell walls will be destroyed'
Not cell walls.
The main difficulty with ocean acidification is that calcite and aragonite, forms of calcium carbonate, which forms shells and some other parts of some organisms tends to dissolve more easily. Not all organisms have calcite/aragonite parts, but enough do so any significant dissolution is of concern. Enough do so that if there were major mortality then ocean ecosystems would be in trouble. Some common kinds of phytoplankton like coccolithphores have calcite parts, other common phytoplankton like diatoms don't. For zooplankton, krill don't have calcite parts while pteropods do. Oysters do and fish don't.
How much affected? My understanding is that it's hard to say. Experiments have shown that some species of coccolithophore can tolerate only a small pH change while others have considerable tolerance.
Exactly what will actually happen with continued business-as-usual CO2 emissions, nobody can say with certainty yet, except that we won't like it, or our decendants won't.
"Lose the planet" to me says that everybody's going to die, nobody left because there's no place to live.
An exaggeration.
(....we hope... try http://www.columbia....entations.shtml and choose the 2008 December presentation, scroll to near the end)
Mess up our planet enough so that our decendants revile us? Sure, unless we reduce business-as-usual fossil fuel use a lot, and get to it soon enough. Mess up our planet enough so a major human population crash is assured? Maybe.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users