Sunday, March 17, 2013

the solution to our engery crisis


      In the middle ages someone discovered that coal was better than wood for fire.

 To get coal you must dig for it which is hard if the tunnels you dig keeps flooding. This situation solution was the steam engine. The steam engine was the beginning of the first industrial revolution. After this revolution we had other inventions powered by coal.

 This made things a lot easier, but it also started us destroying earth. We have grown so dependent on that we've build our world around it. It’s given us ways for transportation and to harness electricity which now a days everything uses electricity.

 It nearly impossible for us to give even though it destroys are planet, but if we find another power source or a way to manage the source we have better than there’s a chance for earth.

     When bush was president we had a war with Iraq and many at first believed this war was over the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. The truth is George W. Bush had his own motives and I personally believe it was for oil. Oil is a valuable trade as money its self in America and money is power. Republicans won’t let power slip out of their hands if they don’t have to. While George W. Bush was president he wanted to lift ban on offshore oil drilling that stood since his father was president was president. Things like off shore drilling causes oil spills.


     I believe that the energy crisis can be solved, but time is needed and the need of power has to be set aside. “Living in natures budget” (  http://www.youtube.com/user/ZMisrael?feature=watch , 300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 seconds) is the key to using coal without destroying earth, but it won’t help expand the economy. We will have to find other ways in doing so. This is what is needed to be done and not fracking.

If your drinking tap water at this moment I would advise you to dump it back in the sink now!

 Water mixed with sand and chemicals is injected in the ground at high pressures to fracture shale rocks to release natural gas. This sounds smart and it’s an alternative to digging up oil offshore, but there is a problem with this method. One gas well needs 400 tanker trucks to carry the water which holds around 8 million gallons. That’s a lot of countries without enough clean water to supply it's people and there are no trucks to try to help them,

 but that’s not even the worst part. The water is mixed with sand and around 40,000 gallons of chemicals and still that’s not the worst part. The chemicals that are used are lead, uranium, mercury, ethylene, radium, methanol, hydrochloric acid, and formaldehyde (www.dangersoffracking.com ). 

That’s only some of the chemicals used and those eight are extremely dangerous to the human body. These chemicals are being pumped near are water supply. Even though it’s being pumped through a tube these chemicals leak out in to our drinking water supply. We have two choices use what nature gives us when it gives us instead of digging up the earth

 or be the cause of destroying earth.

 One other possibility will be to find a source of energy, but that will be the more difficult choice.                  

1 comment:

  1. Yahni,

    Interesting post. I like all of the pictures, and your approach, but I'm not sure if you really answered all of the questions here.

    Without the paragraph format, it's hard for the reader to see where you are going.

    Also, where is the paragraph about the opposing viewpoint? Who disagrees with you? Who supports fracking and why? (NY farmers? Gas companies? Which politicians?)

    I do like how you sited sources and included facts. You should have at least 3 facts per paragraph.

    This is a creative post. Now take that creative energy and use it with more focus and aim.


    This post is also 1 week late (-10).


    GR: 75

    ReplyDelete