our house was an “all electric home,” powered by connecticut light and power. cl&p supplies their customers with energy through oil and nuclear technology. at the time of our renovation we looked into installing solar panels on our roof, but our state didn’t offer an incentive and we wouldn’t see the return on investment as immediately as we did with propane. after making the switch, our monthly energy bill is one fifth of what is was before, our home heats and cools more efficiently, and sometimes the butter on the stove melts too fast.

less carbon, less harm

the word “carbon dioxide” is tossed around by scientists, journalists and citizens a lot; it comes with a negative association — at least for many. carbon dioxide is the world’s most prevalent greenhouse gas. many don’t know that it is a necessary component of the earth’s atmosphere and that it has only become threatening over the past few decades. the concentration of co2 in our atmosphere has risen exponentially due to human activities like the burning of coal for electricity and fossil fuels in our cars; the excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to anthropogenic climate change. atmospheric carbon dioxide is measured in parts per million (ppm), and over the past 50 years the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere has gone from 320ppm to almost 400ppm.

the burning of coal produces two times more carbon dioxide than the burning of natural gas. we are approaching a tipping point of 450ppm, where the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide will be too great for mitigation efforts to actually reverse the effects of climate change. so with our planet’s future weighing in the balance, is natural gas the bridge to renewable energy?

by 2040, natural gas will make up 38 percent of u.s. energy production. coal production in the us is slowing, and while the development and use of domestic natural gas resources is reducing carbon dioxide emissions, natural gas production and distribution does come with its own environmental concerns.

a temporary solution

the process of getting natural gas, trapped in between the layers of rock, can be harmful to the environment if not done carefully. hydraulic fracturing “produces fractures in the rock formation that stimulate the flow of natural gas or oil, increasing the volumes that can be recovered. wells may be drilled vertically hundreds to thousands of feet below the land surface and may include horizontal or directional sections extending thousands of feet.” methane flaring and water contamination are two environmental concerns related to hydrofracking; this reality cannot be ignored, even though natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel.

so while my family didn’t go the extra step and invest in renewable energy technology, that’s where the united state’s energy future needs to head. we need to move in the direction of renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, and geothermal. these technologies produce energy without emitting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and can help reduce and eliminate the threat human activities pose to our planet.

the raw facts are always the most astounding to me; like that 82.8 million barrels of oil are consumed each day, or that one wind turbine can produce enough energy to power 300 homes, and that each day the sun creates enough energy to power the world for an entire year.

that last fact really stuck with me. if the sun creates that much energy, why aren’t we investing in ways to harness more of it? while researching solar energy, i consistently was surprised by the power and apparent affordability.

in order to harness the energy from the sun and turn it into electricity, it is necessary to have solar cells to collect and transform solar energy into useable electricity. to power the entire world for a year, we would need to fill just 25,000 square miles of our planet with solar panels. this area is only slightly larger than the state of west virginia, and can power the entire planet.

just to put the sun power into perspective, the amount of power that reaches the earth in one day is valued at $625 trillion dollars! that’s enough money to buy google, microsoft, apple and facebook 686 times over. meanwhile the amount of energy that reaches the earth in one year is valued at $228 quadrillion dollars – enough money to pay the u.s. national debt 16,294 times. yet putting a solar panel on your home isn’t nearly as expensive as i expected it to be.

solar panels are expensive initially, but your return on investment is quick. hybrid cars start at around $25,000 and the return on investment is 6.5 years. those high efficiency washing machines that you probably already have in your home will take 5 years to return your investment and home solar panels are right there with them. the return on home solar electricity is only six years, and is even shorter in places with government incentives. states like new jersey, massachusetts, and pennsylvania have incentive programs (srec) that make the payback rate drop to 4 years.

this left me wondering why more people don’t have solar panels on their home, immediately thinking of my parents who live in pennsylvania i realized that it is something they have never actually looked into or heard about doing. solar panels don’t really “sound” affordable and large start up costs without federal incentives would be hard for most people to justify, yet 92 percent of people in the u.s. feel the government should implement solar power programs.

a one kilowatt home solar panel could prevent 170 pounds of coal from being burned and 300 pounds of co2 from being released into the atmosphere. most home solar systems are between 3 and 7 kilowatts. solar energy isn’t affordable and effective for every house but everyone should be learning about the options that solar energy has to offer on both large and small scale projects. whether it’s to save the environment, or just save money, we should be looking into solar resources as we move toward the future.