by: Kevin Johnson

          With rapidly depleting natural resources, the United States, along with the rest of the world, is constantly in the hunt for efficient ways to alternately produce power.  Several methods have already been implemented.  However, problems can arise, and methods can become quite controversial.  That is, they fail to satisfy critical questions within the society that argues for the search for these alternatives in the first place. The key to finding the right method is to satisfy both dilemmas:  economical efficiency and environmental friendliness.  This paper will delve into the discoveries both old and recent that are on the brink of creating a cost-effective, green world, and analyze several viewpoints towards the burning question:  Is it worth it? 

            According to Julia Corbett, a communications professor and environmental communication enthusiast, green has become synonymous with affluence.  Since the 1980’s, green marketing has given consumers the impression that green is the gateway to the “good life”. But how is this idea of a green market “fad” applicable to energy?  Being “green” is an identity.  People identify with each other on this platform as a political standpoint.  For instance, over the past 10 years, homeowners in the mid-western United States have gradually bought into the solar-electric trend by installing solar cells on their roofs.  Is this innovation truly an innovation? Or is it the newest, “hottest” item to add to your home?

In 1967, 98 percent of rural farms had access to electricity (1).  Needless to say, the majority of modern households across the United States now use electricity on a daily basis.  The emergence of electricity usage was not a fad.  People wanted it in their house simply because it revolutionized their home or farm.  Firms had very few regulations, if any, to produce the electricity by any means.  Fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas were used in large plants known as fossil-fuel power plants to yield electricity for distribution among the masses.  Recently, however, stigmas have been placed on the huge corporations that burn fossil fuels in order to produce electricity, and most have shut down, like the Mohave Power Station in Laughlin, Nevada.  With the recent ozone scares, habitat destruction, and rapidly depleting non-renewable resources, the government and the American people have involved themselves, or at least thought about steps that should be taken to help our natural habitat.  This became the mainstream green marketing movement of the 1980’s. The end product electrical companies provide is the same: switching on a light, watching television, using a cell phone, and even enjoying a warm bath.  However, there are several popular, but not necessarily efficient approaches to electrical production at home or through a utility company.  The two methods that promote green affability and/or economically sound prices are dams and the recent innovations of solar panels.

            Dams produce electricity that is commonly referred to as hydroelectric power.  There are many advantages to hydroelectricity.  Since the dam is powered by the movement of water, no fuel is burned in the production process.  This means that greenhouse gas emission levels (carbon dioxide) are reduced.  Dams are also one of the oldest, most reliable systems, with reliability proven over time.  The first hydroelectric dam was created in 1882, only two years after Thomas Edison showed his discovery of incandescent lighting (1).   Hydroelectric dams use a renewable resource as its main input for production: rain water.  Water is free, and comes in abundant supply in many areas of the world.  These factors make hydroelectric power one of the “greenest” means of electrical production (2).

            Although the solution to the world’s power crisis appears to be found in hydroelectric dams, the dams do have their drawbacks.  Dams need huge amounts of water, isolated in a reservoir, in an area with consistent rainfall.  This alone greatly narrows down the areas in which a dam would be worth constructing for the mass-production of hydroelectricity (Perry). With the small amount of locations that fit these criteria, we reach a simple conclusion – all of the potential dam sites are already taken. In the early stages of the United State’s electrical era, dams produced over 50 percent of the nation’s power.  With an ever-increasing demand for electricity and a diminishing supply of possible locations for dams, hydroelectricity only comprises a mere 10 percent of the nation’s power today (2).  There is much talk about how dams are environmentally promotional; they do, however have a negative impact on the natural habitat of Chinook and Steelhead salmon in the northwestern United States.  According to an excerpt from Effects of Hydroelectric Development and Fisheries, hydroelectric dams on the Colombia River in Washington State have caused a high mortality rate in juveniles migrating downstream (Raymond).

             Going back to green, we ask ourselves, “Why would we as individuals care about how our electricity is produced?”  Environmentally conscious people push for hydroelectricity.  Research is conducted by people to make current dams produce at cheaper rates and thus greater efficiency through innovation.  Currently, hydroelectricity is about five cents per Kilowatt-hour (kWh), making it the cheapest power alternative among the energy firms engaged in mass production (7).

            Solar cells, also known as photovoltaic cells, are a more personal method for electricity production.  The panels come in a few sizes; a typical setup for Atlanta would be a 2-kilowatt system.  Product costs and installation fees can add up to between $20,000 and $30,000.  After these are installed, monthly savings start to occur – at an average of a whopping 34 bucks a month (Perry).  This means that it would take a little over 49 years for the cheapest setup in Atlanta to pay for itself.  Obviously, the numbers don’t line up.  However, famous celebrities like Robin Williams, Danny DeVito, and Carlos Santana raise awareness of the new industry, and promote the desire for typical people to live under roofs like the rich and famous (Heger).  In the words of Corbett, “…we are influenced by the communication of pop culture and social institutions … this communication becomes part of the larger social fabric…” (Corbett).  Although we are easily sucked into this green dream world, there is no doubt that solar cells are environmentally friendly.  However they are far from economically sound for the consumer.  According to the Energy Information Association, the average American household burns 11,040 kWh per year (8).  Assuming that this energy was created solely by hydroelectric dams, annual costs would only amount to a mere $552.  Until scientists explore better technologies to lower the costs of solar cells, people are better off financially going with good old fashioned power lines.

            Many measures have been taken to find the best alternatives to power in the United States.  However, certain requirements must be met in the eyes of society.  Green activists want power production methods that result in overall environmental friendliness.  On top of that, the efficiency and money-saving techniques are highly sought after by the producing firms.  Most would bring up solar panels as the explanation, although efficient personal means of electrical production has not quite been discovered.  However, the notion of celebrities coupled with the green identity has drawn more people to the industry.  Figures blatantly show the huge economic loss for the consumer.  Dams, on the other hand, are on the brink of becoming totally green and economically logical by producing electricity in environmentally friendly fashions at the best possible price.  Our energy crisis would end if only we had more dam locations.

Sources:

1. “Electricity.” <www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/eh/elec.html>.

2.  “Hydroelectric Power Use.”  <http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/wuhy.html>.

3. Perry, Pam. "Solar Panel Savings." <http://www.trustyguides.com/solar- panels3.html>.

4. Monica Heger. "Hollywood stars heat up solar power." Fortune: Giving Back. 15 Feb. 2006.CNN.<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/01/01/8368105/index.htm>.

5. Raymond, Howard L. "Effects of Hydroelectric development and Fisheries." North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8 (1988): 1-24.

6.  Corbett, Julia B. Communicating Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2006.

7. "Comparing the Costs for Alternative Energy Resources." Green Living Answers. 2009. Google.<http://www.greenlivinganswers.com/archives/192>.

8. <www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php>.