Manhattan Island: Fossil Fuel Free by 2026 - Essay Example

Manhattan Island: Fossil Fuel Free by 2026

Introduction

The Island of Manhattan in New York City literally thrives on fossil fuels, anything from petroleum, natural gas or coal. As the population density of the island continues to increase, the need of transportation that is more efficient, improved amenities and other facilities continues to stress resources. From basic technologies like computers to vehicles and big industries, urbanization in Manhattan is the result of fossil fuel exploitation. Fossil fuels are the drivers of space heating, manufacturing, transportation, and generation of electricity (Englund & Beery, 2013). The topic of the extent of fossil fuel exploitation around the world is vital because of the direct implications it has on life. Questions surround the actual effects of environmental pollution on health, but over the decades, scholars have established a direct link between the two. Englund and Beery assert that, in the environmental perceptive age, the pollution debate has especially heightened with increased use of fossil fuels over the years (2013). The sad reality is that the environmental problems brought by using fossil fuels for social benefits continue to increase with industrialization. The composition of air in most countries has significantly changed, and with population ever on the rise, there remains a looming danger on the continuity of lifecycles. In this regard, the global war against pollution has heightened, with countries taking a keen interest in moving away from fossil fuels as a form of energy. This paper focuses on the use of fossil fuels on the island of Manhattan, with a particular emphasis on the transition to other forms of energy by 2026.

Fossil Fuel use in Manhattan

As mentioned previously, fossil fuels drive the Manhattan economy. From the construction of infrastructure, its use and even sometimes its disposal, these fuels prove to be extremely vital in the island’s industrialization. Fuel is consumed by trucks ferrying material to construction sites and by equipment at the site. The vehicles of Manhattan workers as they report to and leave their places of work also consume it. It is consumed both in households and in industries. As such, fossil fuels may be practically indispensable in the Manhattan economy, a trend that is synonymous to that of other highly populated cities globally. As the need for fossil fuel energy keeps increasing, environmental problems continue to multiply, and the cost of such energy increases. On a commercial perspective, most sources of energy available for running industrial plants have a direct impact on the environment; it is therefore essential to note that there is no perfect alternative to the environmental predicament. For instance, considering that a plant may use either oil, natural gas, coal or uranium to run, all these options have their shortcomings. In the US, oil is rare and is in most cases expensive due to importation costs. While natural gas may have the least effect on the environment, it is also rare and costly. Uranium, on the other hand, is surrounded by safety debates and concerns of proper disposal (The Economics of Nuclear Power 2015). Most plants therefore prefer to use coal, which also attributes to global warming due to the emission of carbon gasses. A survey on air pollution in Manhattan revealed that approximately 95% of space heating in the island is accruable to residual fossil fuels (Englund & Beery, 2013). Further, the study showed that the levels of sulphur dioxide emission was high per every square mile in the island, with the exception of the island’s southern region, where most space heating is facilitated by steam generation (Englund & Beery, 2013). Nevertheless, why is sulphur content in fossil fuels so vital? Most effects of sulphur dioxide emission in the air are reflected directly by the population of an area. High concentrations of sulphur dioxide in the air lowers its quality, which has negative implications for the people and other living things that depend on air to survive.

Figure 1 (New York State Profile and Energy Estimates 2015)

The cost incurred from the use of fossil fuels in households and industries is generally high throughout the globe. The electricity utility mainly accounts for almost half of the energy produced and is in high demand in densely populated areas like Manhattan. Englund and Beery assert that between 1920 and 1968, the demand for fossil fuels in the US had increased from 16% to 41.8% for petroleum and from 5% to 36.3% for natural gas (2013). These figures have over the years continued to increase proportionately with the demand for energy. The generation of electricity using fuel oil in the United States for example rose to 1.6% between 2013 and 2014 alone (New York State Profile and Energy Estimates 2015). Figure 1 shows that the use of natural gas in New York is most prevalent compared to other fossil fuels. This means a correspondingly higher cost implication on natural gas. With the price of natural gas being at $20 per unit and the total natural gas consumed being at approximately 1315.3 trillion Btu, the total estimated expenditure was $2630.6 trillion for 2013 only (New York State Profile and Energy Estimates 2015). Considering consumption by sector, the cost of motor gasoline was estimated at $7.126 million per Btu while that of natural gas was estimated at 3.399 per million Btu by 2016 (Total Energy 2015). These statistics prove that the economy of the US and that of Manhattan as well is heavily reliant on the prices of fossil fuels. Additionally, as the demand for the gradually diminishing resources escalates, the effects are felt in the prices. The driving factor for the cost of fuel is usually the sourcing of carbon and its storage. As such, the solution to reducing the use of fossil fuels with the increasing demand evident in Manhattan lies in proper research and sufficient financing. The existing statistics and projections are a clear indication that Manhattan needs to formulate more efficient and cheaper sources of energy to remain economically competitive. The option of using natural gas for energy will gradually be eliminated by the high prices predicted to prevail in future and the general unavailability of the fuel. Other fossil fuels are also facing the same predicament. Manhattan therefore faces the challenge of adopting newer cost efficient and available energy sources.

Alternative Sources of Energy Proposed

Even though gradually, the process of transitioning to a fossil fuel free system is not only feasible but also affordable. Adopting alternative sources of energy means that the Manhattan environment will be sustainable and benefits of this will accrue directly to the Manhattan population. Most people that are sceptical about the adoption of alternative energy sources claim that compared to the use of fossil fuels, the economy of other options remains non-competitive based on cost (Asplund, 2008). That adopting other alternatives would mean more burden on governments and eventually on taxpayers. This begs the question of whether the cost of transitioning to cleaner sources of energy is too high a price to pay. Governments have been at the forefront in providing incentives, regulations and subsidies for the adoption of clean energy, but additional support is needed from industries to ensure the continuity of these efforts. Industries are especially the main contributor to environmental problems through fossil fuel emissions. As such, they play a crucial role in the transition to a fossil fuel free economy. One of the most highly debated alternatives in the transition from fossil fuels is the Manhattan project. Asplund asserts that the private industries have already embarked on this project as part of achieving clean energy sources that are cost friendly (2008). The Manhattan project was an initiative during the Second World War whose aim was to build a nuclear bomb, which at the time was valued at $2 billion (Asplund, 2008). The project in relation to the eradication of the use of fossil fuels aims at making other alternative sources of energy more competitive with relevance to cost. Adopting a Manhattan type project to curb the use of fossil fuels would mean the introduction of technologies that consume limited carbon when generating and using energy. Contrary to the extensive belief that nuclear power has a negative impact on biodiversity, scientists have proven that it could solve the environmental problems caused by fossil fuels. To this end, as part of the Manhattan project in eliminating the use of fossil fuels, the local government of Manhattan could support local industries in tapping nuclear energy. Scientists have proven that the energy produced by nuclear reactions is sustainable and is as efficient as fossil fuels. It is however worthy to note that such an approach would require absolute safety measures in ensuring that energy is tapped without interfering with biodiversity. This project would require the local government to subsidize the industries as a way of increasing innovations in technology. Much as these subsidies to industries are not a guarantee that the industries boosted will make effective transitions from fossil fuels; it will have a direct impact on the emission practices of the sectors.

Cost Anticipated on Adopting Alternative Source

The feasibility of attaining a fossil fuel free economy in Manhattan depends on cost implications, developing technologies and the attitude of the island’s inhabitants towards the alternatives. Nuclear energy may arise thoughts of cold war if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings of the Second World War are anything to go by, but is nuclear power really all about war? It is true that virtually, nuclear energy was adopted for military purposes. However, scientists like Alvin Weinberg convinced the US Senate on the safe and efficient use of nuclear energy in 1945, later commissioned in 1946 (Lusted, 2013). Lusted asserts that by the end of 2012, 441 nuclear energy plants were already running, and provided roughly 16% of the total electricity in the world; 104 of these were in the United States alone (2013). To produce energy, nuclear reactors use uranium ore as fuel, which then generates electricity, used in households or commercially. Further, Lusted asserts that a single particle of uranium ore is capable of producing about 1780 pounds, 149 gallons and 17000 cubic feet of coal, oil and natural gas respectively (2013). The use of uranium in nuclear reactors provides the advantage that the resource is cheap and can easily be transported (The Economics of Nuclear Power 2015). Further, because uranium is very abundant in Manhattan, transportation costs are even lower. Although the nuclear reactor plants are expensive to set up initially, the cost of running the plants are relatively small. In addition, a cost analysis of the two reveals that among all three sources of energy, uranium provides a sustainable alternative that is cost effective. In transitioning from fossil fuels, the initial costs of setting up nuclear reactors include capital costs, external costs and plant operating expenses (The Economics of Nuclear Power 2015). These take into account the construction of the plant, its commissioning, insurance, operating and maintaining it. The cost of setting up a new nuclear energy plant was estimated at $ 5339 per kW as at 2010 (The Economics of Nuclear Power 2015). Nuclear power has its advantages but there exists the question of its waste disposal and safe handling. Nuclear energy wastes take hundreds of years to decay, if such waste leaks, then it becomes detrimental for biodiversity (Lusted, 2013). Scientists are however carrying out extensive research to determine proper methods of addressing in a bid to eradicate over-reliability on fossil fuels.

Barriers to transition from fossil fuels to cleaner fuels in Manhattan

As reiterated throughout the essay, renewable technologies have but an enormous potential in Manhattan, and the realization of this potential comes at a price. To this end, market research posits that many a clients will purchase renewable power, regardless of whether it costs slightly higher than conventional energy does (Report, 2011, Clark, 2013). In retrospect, experience, along with economic theory, suggest significant market failures and subsequent failures, which have the potential to limit the advancement of renewables, unless, of course, the State of New York enacts special policy measures to embolden development.

Commercialization barriers stem from the collision of new technologies with the older ones that we are used to. To compete with fossil fuels, which are characteristically mature, it is of the essence that renewable energies overcome barriers that take two common forms: the lack of economies of scale and the lack of a developed infrastructure (Report, 2011; Elliott, 2015; Cuthbertson, 2016). Largely, the production of most renewable forms of energy takes place on assembly lines, whereby mass production can increasingly reduce costs. Economies of scale, on this note, would lead to significant reductions in the production of fuel cell, wind, or even biomass energy (Report, 2011). In the Manhattan context, the production of these energies is usually small scale, an incidence that stems from the relatively low demand. As a result, the process of these fuels tend to remain high. The low demand, on this note, translates to commensurately low production volumes. In terms of infrastructure, also, renewable energies necessitate large starting investments infrastructure-wise (Clark, 2013). These costs, in turn, increase the costs associated with the provision of these renewable energies, particularly in the Manhattan context.

Another factor that may impede on the adoption of renewable energies in Manhattan relates to associated taxes, as well as government subsidies. Granted the popularity and widespread use of fossil fuels, the state of New York has significantly subsidized them, and this gives them an edge over the emergent renewable energies. The state, on this note, has availed significant subsidies for their research.

Impact of the transition on tourism in Manhattan

The transition to a fossil-free economy would, undoubtedly, attract freeing interest, particularly from investors. Even more significant would the scholarly, societal, and general interest that the transition would beget. This transition will call for the application of immense and specialized engineering, project, and even management expertise and techniques. More and more nations will want to evaluate and benchmark the transition, in a bid to establish the best possible practices applicable in their context, in line with the Millennium Development Goals. This transition will translate to major career changes, ranging from the technological manpower, to the executives. With time, renewable energies will become a mainstay of the larger Manhattan economy, and the few parties that will be yet to embrace this transcendent change will be in a constant scramble to acclimate. To this effect, the world will want to know how the various engineering and scientific skills that have made the fracking revolution possible were applied, so that they can apply these where necessary. The engineering and scientific community, therefore, will want to know how the skills previously employed in the extraction, production, and subsequent processing of fossil fuels can be transferred to less destructive applications in the renewable energy sector. Scholars will want to publish case studies on how the transition has impacted society, administration, industry, and other crucial sectors of the Manhattan economy. Environmentalists will want to validate and ascertain the environmental impact of this transition, and how the rest of the world could benefit commensurately (Clark, 2013). Lawmakers, as well as international policy bodies, will not want to lag behind, as they will push the Senate to table more policies in favor of subsidies and friendlier taxes for the renewable energy sector. This will translate to a spike in the influx of tourists in the country, as they would seeks to experience Manhattan first hand. The air will be clean. There would have to be major changes in industry and other sectors in the economy, with industries switching to more environment-friendly technologies. Researchers will have to be on the ground, to research and test out some of the said technologies for effectiveness and applicability. As such, tourists will flock in by the troves, with everyone seeking to experience such a momentous period in history first-hand.

Conclusion

The debate surrounding the transitioning from fossil fuel energy to alternative sources of energy is intricate and highly politicized. A decision to transition from carbon-based sources of energy means that Manhattan must be ready to bear the high cost of such a move. Despite the fact that the world continues to exploit fossil fuels successfully, these resources are fast running out and driving the price of fuel high. Besides, an overdependence on fossil fuels translates to Manhattan being dependent on foreign countries it imports the resources from. The use of nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels may not entirely be the perfect alternative, but for Manhattan, it is the better evil. As a measure to ensure sustainability in energy provision and curbing environmental problems, Manhattan should aim at transitioning to nuclear energy.