It is generally accepted that the solution to the current energy crisis will not be one great idea but an amalgam of ideas already in place. Existing technologies, such as nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric energy, must be re-vamped for a wider usage. Traditional nuclear plants were made on site and each one was different from any other, however each plant essentially did the same thing. Westinghouse, an energy organization, has realized that this system is not sustainable on a large scale. In order to create a large amount of nuclear plants for cheap Westinghouse is making them modular; all parts of these plants are created in large chunks and shipped, reducing the construction time of a plant by about half. After the Fukushima incident, which was caused by emergency coolant not being mobilized due to a power failure of the pumps, designers realized that public opinion would not support these new modular plants unless this crucial detail was resolved. Their solution was to count on a power source that will always deliver: gravity. By putting the emergency reservoir directly on top of the reactor it is assured that in the event of a meltdown, coolant can be directly introduced without a need of electricity.

            The wedge metaphor, pictured above, accurately describes how our energy goals for the next half century are easily tackled if we can break it into smaller parts. I agree with this method because, as an engineer, I commonly breakdown a problem into its pieces in order to understand and diagnose the situation in more depth. Another nuance of this approach is gradation; we cannot just simply decide to close all fossil fuel plants and open all renewable plants. There must be an easing of policy and implementation if we are to change energy sources seamlessly and gracefully.

            A relatively new method of reducing CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants is to physically bury the exhaust into a porous layer of rock a mile below the surface. This is a good solution, in theory, but I personally don’t believe it to be sustainable over the long term. Functionally you are creating a large pressure under the surface of whatever landmass you choose and eventually that pressure will be released. Currently there are only four large scale plants doing this today so there is obviously room for improvements.

            One large criticism of investing into alternative energy sources is that there currently is no market incentive to do so. Oil production has been around so long that the industry practices are well refined (pun intended) and when you compare it to the high costs of production and research of alternative energies, there is no competition. In a capitalist market money talks, and currently it’s not speaking for these new sources.

            I do not believe that people will embrace newer, more expensive technologies until it becomes essential to their livelihood. Like the frog in a pot, he won’t jump out if the temperature slowly rises; he will only jump out if he feels a sudden danger. Sadly I believe that the world will need to experience some tragedy or major event to completely endorse alternative energies. I hope that a market for alternative and renewable energies emerges soon to spark development and personally, I would like to be part of that emergence.