Ask the polar bears.
Point being, life revolves around sources of energy. In the beginning, mankind had only the energy from the Sun, which fed the plants, which fed him/her, which allowed him to do work by hand. His hands then chopped wood, which became a fire, which allowed him to warm himself, cook meals, and work beyond dark. In time, mankind found coal and built hotter fires, permitting the smelting of newly discovered iron ore. Iron tools led to the discovery of oil, which provided alternative sources for heat and light. The light from such lamps permitted extra time to studying the oil refinery process which resulted in the wonderful discovery of a dangerously combustible liquid now known as gasoline. Sometime between iron tools and gasoline, the concept of electricity had been roughed-out and then the telegram emerged. As the transfer of information expanded in breadth and increased in speed, along came the telephone, lightbulb, cars, automated machines, planes, computers, nuclear reactors, space ships, space station, Moon-landing, robots, mobile phones, personal computers, Mars-landing, smart phones, solar panels, fuel cells, Teslas.
What the author is trying to get at: Energy makes the world go round! It’s written in the laws of physics: in order for work to be done, energy must be expended. In order to advance, humanity needs energy, either in the form of self-sustenance – for example, food, as discussed previously – or in external forms which allow for the achievement of feats beyond human abilities – traveling 80 miles an hour, building skyscrapers, surfing the internet.
Following the brief (and unverified) history of energy given above, there seems to be a pattern of steady increase in energy consumption since the beginning of recorded time. Now, consumption of energy isn’t so much of a bad thing. In part, it correlates to progress (increased communication, high speed transportation, greater productivity) and increased enjoyment of personal luxuries (central cooling/heating, personal transportation, computing, etc.). However, just as in every aspect of life, society must remain mindful of irresponsible sourcing and inefficient usage. In the past 150-200 years, there has been a massive productive push to protect the environment and the planet nearly 7.7billion people call home. Over the decades, significant efforts have been made to manufacture devices more efficient and energy production (or, more accurately – energy conversion) more efficient.
I believe there is still significant room to improve; and where there is room to improve, there is value to be added and proportional profits to be made. The whole “going-green” movement only makes it easier for people (and even big-businesses) to switch to more innovative and sustainable sources of energy, electricity in particular.
Note/Thought: Personally, I don’t believe solar panels are the perfect solution/the most efficient and effective route. Supporting arguments can be made for many of the popular energy sources, but I currently favor nuclear energy (either fission, or fusion – if we can figure it out). I do believe it may need to be rebranded before global adoption because of the stigmatism and unease which the term “nuclear” attracts. For now, I’ll leave my opinions here as assertions without evidential support. However, if you’re interested, Michael Shellenberger makes a compelling argument for nuclear energy in one of his TED talks.
Comments
Post a Comment