Op-Ed
Carbon Freeze
Email: 
Share: 
Critical Mass
.jpg "Critical Mass")
Fossil fuels suck. I can blame 90 percent of problems on fossil fuels. Illegitimate third world dictators? Fossil fuels got them into power. Illegitimate U.S. presidents? Again, it’s fossil fuels’ fault. Melting ice caps? Toxic air? Destroyed marine life? Rich frat boys who can zip around campus late at night in SUVs, gunning their engines? Well, that’s at least partially fossil fuels, though I also blame trashy television, Abercrombie, and Fitch. But basically, we need to 86 those fossil fuel bitches.
There is no cheap, environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels that will allow millions of Americans to continue driving around in giant cars like suburban pimps — in economics speak, there is no supply side solution. The cheap and elegant solution is demand side: get people to stop using the automobile.
Alright, I know what you’re thinking: “green alternative fuels.” And no offense, but you’re wrong.
Let me guess, you are one of the many worshippers of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle — the one that “produces nothing but water.” Not so hot. See, I remember another vehicle filled with hydrogen. It was called the Hindenburg. It blew up in flames, because pure hydrogen tends to do that. Worse yet, hydrogen needs to be extracted from some other chemical, and the most cost-effective chemicals we can take it from are hydro-carbons which release the atoms easily. These chemicals go by common names like methane and propane. Cheap dirty versions include oil and natural gas. In the release process, carbon dioxide (Al Gore’s nemesis) is produced. This is why Bush loves the fuel cell — people think they’re putting oil companies out of business, when in fact they’ve just added a convenient degree of separation. We could also take hydrogen from water, but this takes a lot of energy, which will probably come from the electric grid, powered by oil, natural gas, and coal. Have you begun to see a pattern here? The fuel cell continues our dependence on oil, and continues the creation of green house gasses. It’s also ridiculously expensive.
Another supply side fix commonly touted is nuclear energy. Make a lot of nuclear power plants to make more electricity, and power the cars on lithium-ion batteries. I’ve got two issues here. First, nuclear power plants are like girls from Long Island: expensive to care for, and most people hate being around them. Second, large batteries are full of toxic chemicals, and the manufacturing process produces the kind of sludge that gives frogs three eyes.
Next you’re going to tell me about wind, solar power, and hydroelectric plants. My harsh criticism here is a bit too complicated for an 800-word column but I’ll give you highlights. Wind is expensive, regional, and the noisy turbines built into once-forested hillsides leave people saying, “Not in my back yard!” Hydroelectric dams can only be built where there are large rivers falling down large hills. This tends to happen in places far away from the major cities that need the electricity (the further the electricity travels, the more is lost in transit). Worse still, these rivers and streams tend to be in beautiful natural areas we wish to protect. Solar energy is the best bet of the three, but it’s expensive to make good solar panels and quite toxic as well. Above all, these solutions are for the electric grid, and thus still involve toxic electric cars. I happen to know a cheaper solution, with no environmental strings attached.
Alright, so what’s my plan? Stop thinking of a supply side fix, and start thinking about a way to curb demand for energy in general. To do so, we need to rethink and rebuild the communities we live in.
Ithaca is the city of the future. It’s small, family friendly, with a great school district, and surrounded by natural beauty. But more importantly, it has a strong sidewalk culture that allows residents to get where they need to go sans vehicle. The TCAT bus system allows even more rapid and far-reaching transit on large, efficient vehicles. Local farms produce a wide variety of foods which dramatically reduce transportation and production costs that will soon challenge the cost effectiveness of giant agribusiness.
Cornell University, with its forward thinking and scientific prowess, has also provided green technologies. The Cornell power plant dramatically improves its efficiency by piping waste heat into dormitories to provide winter heating. Cornell’s chilled water system from Lake Cayuga also improves energy efficiency and even provides Ithaca High School with air conditioning!
Most importantly, communities like Ithaca prove to skeptical Americans that we can reclaim family-friendly sidewalk communities without forcing everyone to move to Manhattan and pay half a million dollars for a tiny apartment.
Like everything in life, Ithaca’s not perfect. Getting out of this little bubble is still absurdly difficult without a car. All it really takes is Amtrak connection to Syracuse, but so far New York State has failed to deliver. Also, Ithaca still makes driving culture too cheap and easy. Large roadways like routes 13 and 79 promote heavy traffic and destroy neighborhoods. Large strip malls following the suburban design model, like Triphammer Mall and the area just past Wegman’s, nearly force Ithacans into car culture. And for God’s sake. Ithaca Planning Board, BRING BACK THE ITHACA TROLLY. Seriously, you know the kind of tourism that would generate? A cool cable-car link between the Commons and Collegetown would be friggin’ awesome and super green.
Munier Salem is a junior in the College of Engineering. He can be reached at msalem@cornellsun.com. Critical Mass appears Thursdays this semester.
Wind Power Loud
I agree with the supply-side argument, the US is the most wasteful country in the world and there are many ways to cut down our energy demands. However, the author's claim that "Wind is expensive, regional, and the noisy turbines built into once-forested hillsides leave people saying, “Not in my back yard!”" is wrong on three and a half accounts.
1.) Although a single windmill is expensive, it provides a lot of energy. Wind energy has a return on investment of about five years which is much better than many of the alternatives (solar is about 15).
2.) Wind power was noisy in the 1980's. A European study even found that farmers with windmills on their property statistically suffered from more health problems - and this was due to the noise. However, newer windmills are much quieter, from 350 meters they make as audible as a quite bedroom. Unless the author plans on building 30 year old windmills, this statement is completely false.
3.) You don't have to cut down the entire forest to put in the windmills. Sure, they need access roads and a place to stand on, but many forested areas already have fire trails and these are hardly noticeable from afar.
3.5 .) It is true that energy is lost by transferring it from say a windmill farm to the place it is being consumed, however, our nuclear power from Elmira makes a large trip also, and the high voltage helps to mitigate this problem. New York city also has been putting windmills up in the city and this also debunks the statement that they must be in forested backyards.
Finally, I ask that if an 800-word column is dedicated to badmouthing wind, solar, and hydroelectric power, that some research is done first.