1

Joseph Satterwhite

Professor Douglas

UWRT 1103-010

4/10/17
Is Clean Energy the Cure to Climate Change?

Climate change is known to be a pressing issue in todays world. According to many

engineering organizations, solving the issue is one of the grand challenges that engineers and

scientists will need to solve in the 21st century. While some people in todays society seem to

believe climate change is nothing but a hoax, 97% of climate experts agree that climate change is

occurring at an accelerated rate due to human activity. One of the biggest offenders causing

climate change is humanitys use of fossil fuels. The emissions left behind by burning these fuels

pollutes our atmosphere and causes a global warming effect by trapping sunlight in the lower

atmosphere and on Earths surface. The answer to significantly reducing climate change could lie

in switching our energy sources to sustainable, clean energies.

To begin, it is important to understand what exactly climate change is and how we can

prove its existence. According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),

there is irrefutable evidence that climate change has been greatly accelerated due to human

activity and advances in technology and industry. While Earths climate has varied greatly over

the past 650,000 years, it is important to note that there has only been an increase in carbon

dioxide levels over the past 7,000 years. The last ice age ended 7,000 years ago and this

coincided with development of early human civilization. Carbon dioxide (C O2 ) is an

important factor in climate change as it acts as a greenhouse gas when released into the

atmosphere. It traps sunlight and solar radiation that should normally be reflected by the upper

atmosphere. While natural processes release carbon dioxide such as volcanic eruptions and
 2

respiration, human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation release much more

carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than nature intended. In fact, since the Industrial Revolution

of the mid-19th century, human activity has increased C O2 concentration in the atmosphere by

more than a third (NASA).

Along with the proof of increased carbon dioxide trapping sunlight, climate change is

also evident by looking at many other factors. Absorption of C O2 by the oceans is causing

worldwide ocean acidification, threatening the worlds aquatic ecosystems and fisheries

(National 213). In addition, melting ice caps, an unending rise in global temperature year after

year, and glacial retreat all over the globe are important indicators that something is wrong with

Earths climate (NASA). The effects of climate change are just beginning to be seen. If nothing

is done to curb our carbon emissions, we will surely see increased severity in these symptoms.

If humanitys carbon use is the primary culprit in climate change, what steps should be

taken to decrease and one day eliminate carbon emissions? As previously stated, the primary

cause for carbon emission is the burning of fossil fuels. Since 1990, there has been a 41%

increase in emissions from fossil fuels (National 185). Fossil fuels are primarily burned for

electricity and heating, and in the United States the second largest reason is for transportation

which accounts for 28% of all fossil fuel emissions (National 67). The increase in fossil fuel

emissions can be linked to there being more cards on the road, as well as an increased population

in the country. If fossil fuels are what power our cities, industries, and vehicles, it is imperative

that new forms of energy take their place to maintain our civilizations as well as our

environment.
 3

There are many types of alternative energies available to us. Many of these are clean and

renewable energy sources. According to the U.S. Department of Energys Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), there are four main types of clean energy that are

invested in by the United States government. These are solar, wind, water, and geothermal

(Danielson). While all four options seem promising, Dr. Haitao Zhang thinks solar energy will be

the most utilized renewable energy source in the foreseeable future.

Dr. Zhang has a Ph.D. in Materials Science and Engineering, and he is a professor at the

University of North Carolina at Charlotte. As found on his university website, his research

focuses on thin films and nanostructures of functional materials in two major applications: (1)

energy harvesting devices like solar cells and photo-electrochemical cells, and (2) energy-

efficient devices such as smart devices, chemical sensors and light-emitting devices. When

interviewed about which renewable energy source would be the most viable replacement for

fossil fuels, he had this to say. In terms of which renewable energy is most widely accessible,

that is obviously solar. The sun offers an endless supply of energy to every part of the world and

its energy can be collected both directly and indirectly.

Direct solar energy refers to using photovoltaic cells to collect sunlight and convert it to

electricity. It is a relatively new practice that has only scratched the surface of its full potential to

power our civilizations. On the other hand, indirect solar energy has existed since the beginning

of time. It refers to anything found in nature that can be used for energy. Examples of this

include photosynthesis. A plant collects solar energy and converts it to chemical energy for its

own nutrition. Once the plant is fully grown, it can become a bio-fuel that is used to create

electricity. Even fossil fuels are the product of indirect solar energy, as the creatures that became

oil and coal once relied on solar energy to stay alive. Dr. Zhang believes that both direct and
 4

indirect solar energy should work hand in hand, but he is excited for advances in direct solar

energy.

When asked about the efficiency of direct solar energy, Dr. Zhang explained that solar

energy cannot replace fossil fuels with the current technology available. The materials used in

solar panels must be thick enough to absorb sunlight, yet thin enough so the atoms in sunlight

cannot recombine once collected and separated. He went on to say, While we have materials

that can do this, they have short lifespans. New materials, such as perovskite, have longer

lifespans and look promising, but they could leave negative effects on the environment due to

them containing lead.

While it may seem ironic, there is an environmental cost associated with creating clean

energy. The National Research Council corroborates Dr. Zhangs fears of the environmental costs

of clean energy. In terms of solar energy, there is concern that current materials used to create

solar panels could run out and that manufacturing processes create toxic waste (357). Issues with

wind power include the disruption of migration paths for birds and bats (359). Hydroelectric

power can cause damage to aquatic life and the surrounding environment due to stagnant water

and the massive amount of land needed to construct a dam.

Aside from environmental cost, there is economic cost to using clean technologies and

converting from fossil fuels to renewable energies. The EERE reports that it will cost hundreds

of millions of dollars in the 2017 fiscal year alone to research and improve clean energy

technologies. Another important economic factor is the cost of fossil fuels. Dr. Zhang noted that

when fossil fuels like gasoline are cheap, there is decreased pressure on governments and

companies to invest money into developing clean energy.

 5

Finally, the political climate of a nation can influence their views on clean energy.

Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump has signed executive orders rolling back climate and

clean air protections put in place by the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

President Trump has also stated in the past that, The concept of global warming was created by

and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Due to this, Trump

has placed Scott Pruitt, a known climate change denier, in charge of the EPA. In addition,

Trumps proposed budget will cut funds for the EPA by nearly a third. According to the EERE

report, they placed a congressional budget request of $2,722,987 in the 2016 fiscal year, yet only

received $2,069,194. Political obstructions are currently impeding the research and

implementation of clean technologies, and the Trump administrations views on climate change

could prove detrimental to our efforts to combat global warming.

While it may seem that there are too many cons and barriers to achieving a world without

fossil fuels, there are many reasons for accepting a change in how we power our world. Apart

from climate change and the effects of global warming, there is an even more pressing issue

forcing countries to adopt clean technologies and move away from fossil fuels. It is an issue that

Dr. Zhang is all too familiar with. This is the issue of fossil fuels affecting human health. As a

native of China, a nation that has rapidly industrialized in the past few decades, he was able to

give personal testimony about the effects fossil fuels can have on air quality and human health.

Growing up in China, nobody had to wear facemasks and the skies were always blue. Then the

country started to become more industrialized and the population kept increasing. Fossil fuels

powered the industrial and residential boom and the burning of coal created a lot of smog in the

major cities. Every time I go back, the air quality seems worse than before. All of the smog is

causing respiratory issues and decreasing the overall health of the population.
 6

Dr. Zhang then pointed out that China is taking steps to move away from coal and

towards renewable energy, but not necessarily by choice. While China is beginning to move

towards clean energy, it is not by choice. It is due to pressure from the declining health of their

population. If nobody in China is healthy, then their economy will suffer. The United States does

not yet feel this pressure because the population is not as condensed and the air quality is not as

bad, but if we continue to use fossil fuels then eventually the United States and many other

countries will feel the pressure on their populations health.

If the answer to reducing climate change and keeping humans and the environment

healthy truly does rely on converting to clean energy, how could different countries do their part

to reduce global carbon emissions? According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), Sweden

is leading the way in showing how an entire nation can eliminate fossil-fuel use and have low or

even zero carbon emissions. Sweden has set two main energy goals for itself in the near future:

to have a fossil-fuel independent vehicle fleet by 2030 and to have zero net greenhouse gas

emissions by 2050. They plan to do this through heavy taxation on carbon emissions, slowly

phasing out gasoline-powered cars and replacing them with hydrogen and electric cars, and using

natural gas as an energy source while they transition to become fully dependent on renewable

resources. A key policy in Swedish politics is that the plans for energy use and climate change

are one issue, not separate issues. This allows all legislation to push for reducing carbon

emissions, as well as investing in clean energy to make it more affordable and more efficient. If

more nations set goals for themselves like Sweden has, our planet could see massive reductions

in carbon emissions, thereby curbing the effects that climate change is having on our planet.

Is clean energy the answer to solving our climate change issues? It would appear so.

However, clean energy has a long way to go before it is at a point where it can completely
 7

replace fossil fuel usage. Many experts believe that for the time being, renewable energy will

have to supplement our use of fossil fuels. As more pressure is placed on governments to invest

in and adopt clean energy, there will be greater funding for these technologies and a gradual

transition to renewable sources. Our only hope is that more people can see the threat fossil fuels

pose to the climate before the damage done is irreversible.

Works Cited
 8

Dr. Danielson, David T. U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
EERE FY 2017 Budget Request. www.energy.gov: U.S. Department of Energy, 9 Feb.
2016. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.

"Global Climate Change." NASA. Ed. Holly Shaftel, Randal Jackson, and Laura Tenenbaum.
NASA, 10 Mar. 2017. Web. 13 Mar. 2017. https://climate.nasa.gov/

IEA (2013), Energy Policies of IEA Countries: Sweden 2013, IEA, Paris. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264190740-en

Live interview with Dr. Zhang of the MEGR Department at UNCC, April 7th, 2017

National Research Council; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Atmospheric Sciences
and Climate; America's Climate Choices: Panel on Limiting the Magnitude of Climate
Change. "Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change." Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press, 19 May 2010. Web. 13 Mar. 2017.