PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Proposal for Effective Energy Generation in the United States

Nicholas Boone
Clemson University

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Abstract
Energy is the fundamental property of the universe that allows all motion to occur. Unsurprisingly,
it is a topic that is hotly debated. The purpose of this report is to compile some of the research
done on methods of energy generation, then propose a plan for energy production that could be
implemented nationwide. This plan could provide the Nation with a much needed way of providing
power while reducing the negative effects of energy generation in its current form, such as
greenhouse gas emission and lack of renewability. Each of the major considerations of energy
generation; the overall cost, availability of fuel, reliability, as well as environmental, geographic,
and safety concerns, will be taken into account. The plan was not limited to one method of energy
generation, as each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and what works best for one geography
and culture will not necessarily work for another. Additionally, the aim of this report is to increase
the audiences knowledge regarding energy generation and promote creative thinking about the
current and potential future states of energy production.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Authors Note
For our final project, I decided to stick with my major and construct an engineering-style
technical report about energy generation. Technical reports are information dense and serve as
an excellent way to learn a topic quickly. I felt that my chosen genre would be a perfect way to
demonstrate the sentence building, word choice, and other text-based guidelines taught in our
textbook, but worried some of the more visual and creative topics we have covered would be lost.
Technical reports typically lack the creativity and multimodality found in other mediums, like blogs
and videos. For this reason, I aimed to create a clear, concise, and focused report, but one that
has more personality than what may be found in a more traditional report. Visuals were used to
add flair, but only subtly. A splash of color in the form of a chart or image provided a mental break
in between stretches of text to improve readability. The APA guidelines suggesting 12pt double
space text coupled with the choice of a more lightweight font helped to give the document a good
aesthetic balance; full but not too dense. I did not want to create yet another technical report
plagued by long blocks of small, heavy text, which are practically a clich in engineering writing.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Proposal for Effective Energy Generation in the United States

Sufficient energy is essential for any developing society. Without it, communication,
innovation, healthcare, and even lighting become far more difficult. For this reason, it is of the
highest priority that our Nation ensure that we have an energy source that is dependable and has
minimal negative effects1. This is the intention of this report: to sort through existing data about
the positive and negative aspects of each energy generation method and recommend the best
energy source or combination of energy sources to power the United States in the decades to
come. The text will also serve as a collection of gathered knowledge from which further
conclusions and studies can be created.
One of the largest debates likely to come up in a conversation about energy production is
the environmental friendliness of the process used to generate the energy. Each of the primary
methods of energy production used today, coal, natural gas, and nuclear, has its own specific
issues relating to the environment. The power2 sources that do less environmental damage
typically are less efficient, more expensive, less reliable, or a combination of the three. The ideal
plan for energy production will have the lowest impact on the environment per energy generated;
the best bang for buck of performance vs efficiency.

1)

2)

The introduction repeats some of the abstract, and the conclusion will repeat some of the introduction and
literature review. This is intentional and speaks to the fact that the intended recipient of this report would
likely only heavily focus on the abstract, conclusion, and proposal sections of the report. For this reason,
each section should have its own logical flow when taken out of the context of the other sections.
In a physics context, power and energy are definitely not the same, but they are directly proportional.
Within this text, they represent the same concept and can be used interchangeably

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Review of Literature
It is nearly impossible to calculate the number of texts that have been created discussing
every aspect of energy production. The intention of this Review of Literature is to convert several
of these texts from a variety of mediums into one comprehensive database of information that
can be used to make informed decisions about the future of energy generation.
Fossil Fuels
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administrations latest Monthly Energy Review,
fossil fuels provided the United States with 70 quadrillion1 BTUs of energy in the year 2015, or
79.5 percent of the total energy produced (2016). Of this 79.5 percent, coal accounted for 25.5
percent of all fossil fuel production, crude oil 28.3 percent, and natural gas 46.2 percent.
Historically, our dependence on fossil fuels has been even higher. In the year 2000, 81 percent of
energy produced in the U.S. was from fossil fuels, and in 1950 this figure was 92 percent. Fossil
fuels clearly hold the lions share of the United States energy production, but are they may not be
the best way to generate power.

1)

70 quadrillion figure was used to give the audience sense of scale, but then I immediately switched over to
percents to make the numbers relatable.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Coal
Natural Gas
Crude Oil
Nuclear
Hydroelectric
Solar
Wind
Other

Figure 1. Contribution of each energy source to the United States total energy
production in 2015.
Many scientists and researchers worry about the effects fossil fuels are having on our
planet. Cohen1 writes that global warming is directly caused by the increase of carbon dioxide
molecules due to the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas globally (1990). The Department of
Energy agrees, stating that the burning of fossil fuels is directly responsible for nearly 75% of
human caused emissions over the last 20 years (2016). The concentration of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere rose from 315 to 350 parts per million between the years 1958 and 1986,
1)

My Cohen, B. L. (1990) source is in many ways too outdated to be included in a report discussing future
technologies - in fact several of the predictions about nuclear and solar power made in this book would
later be proven false. However in the context of my report this source is used as a reference for
understanding global warming. I decided this source would be safe to use because 1990 is after global
warming and its potential future effects were already well understood.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

corresponding to an average global temperature increase of one degree. Cohen further details the
potential effects of burning fossil fuels (1990). If fossil fuel use continues at its current rate, by the
mid-21st century, the sea level will see a rise that could flood a significant portion of the United
States, including Boston, New York City, Charleston, Miami, and New Orleans. Burning oil and coal
releases a small amount of sulfur, which increases the frequency and acidity of acid rain.
Interestingly, nationwide crop production would actually see an increase, due to the plants
positive response to more carbon dioxide and a warmer climate. He goes on to discuss the risk
fossil fuel burning poses to human health. The chemicals released by burning coal, oil, and natural
gas are very harmful to human lungs. Colds, asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, and lung cancer are
more common in areas with high air pollution. These chemicals also damage the ozone, which
causes an increase in the number of sun-related diseases.
Researchers Kharecha and Hansen of NASA found even graver results when studying the
impact of fossil fuels.
It has become increasingly clear that impacts of unchecked anthropogenic climate
change due to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from burning of fossil fuels could
be catastrophic for both human society and natural ecosystems and that the key
time frame for mitigating the climate crisis is the next decade or so. Likewise, during
the past decade, outdoor air pollution due largely to fossil fuel burning is estimated
to have caused over 1 million deaths annually worldwide. (Kharacha 2013)
A number of health concerns are associated with the mining of coal. According to the
Kentucky Environmental Foundation, miners working in deep coal mines are exposed to high levels
of airborne coal particulates, toxic fumes, and loud noises, which often lead to respiratory and

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

hearing damage (Walker). The Kentucky Environmental Foundation also discusses the dangers of
coal mining on those who never step foot in a mine.
Research conducted within the Appalachian region indicates that people who
merely live near mining activities face increased rates of illness and death. Health
outcomes include lung cancer, heart, respiratory and kidney disease, heart attacks,
cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), high blood pressure, low
birth weight and poorer health related quality of life. Disease rates can also
increase in direct correlation to tons of coal extracted from the region. (Walker)
Another major disadvantage of fossil fuels is the inevitable truth that as energy production
continues to increase, there will be a day when the amount of fossil fuels in existence will not be
able to meet this need. The potential for the U.S. to run out of fossil fuels is increased by our
dependency on other countries for crude oil.
You may wonder why fossil fuel use is so prevalent given its inherit shortcomings.
Historically, the cost of fossil fuel energy production has been cheaper than that of any other type,
but in recent years renewable energy sources have become cheap enough to compete with fossil
fuels. (Conca, 2012). Currently, coal costs 4.1 cents per kilowatt hour, while natural gas, nuclear,
wind, solar, and hydroelectric cost 5.2, 3.5, 4.3, 7.7, and 3.3 cents per kilowatt hour, respectively.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

9
8

Normalized Cost per kWhr (cents/kWhr)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Coal

Gas

Nuclear

Wind

Solar

Hydroelectric

Figure 2. Normalized total life-cycle costs for each primary energy source based
on 2011 data.
This data has been normalized so that it includes the cost of each power plant for its
lifetime, the cost of fuel, and costs associated with each specific energy source, allowing them to
be compared fairly1. They also purposely do not include any of the tax incentives offered for using
cleaner power. It is also important to consider that the infrastructure already exists for fossil fuel
dependency, while increasing our reliance on another energy source would require new power
plants to be built. Fossil fuel dependent energy production is also reliable, very well understood,
and has been optimized for efficiency since its inception. The renewable energy sources each have
their own weaknesses due to the relative novelty of each technology.
1)

The explanation of normalization was not directly on topic, but I included it to demonstrate to the reader
that the data is reliable. It showed that all of the elements of energy generation cost were accounted for in
a way that is fair for comparison. For example, coal is much cheaper to obtain than uranium, but far less
uranium is needed to produce the same amount of power, so it may end up being cheaper.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

10

Wind
Given the environmental pitfalls of each of the fossil fuels, it is evident that a cleaner,
renewable energy source will eventually become a necessity. One such energy source is wind. The
idea behind wind power is that the vast, perpetual movements of our atmosphere can be captured
through a mechanical means and converted into electrical energy1. According to Maehlum, wind
power is a completely renewable resource and there is no reason to expect that it will ever be
exhausted (2015). However, wind power generation is entirely dependent on the availability of
wind at any given moment. Wind turbines cease to generate power as soon as the wind stops, so
areas that are less consistently windy will be at a distinct disadvantage. Countering the effects of
lack of wind would require either a large amount of energy storage, likely in the form of batteries,
or another energy generation method acting in tandem to provide the additional power needed
when wind power fails.
Generation of electricity via wind turbine releases no carbon dioxide or other harmful
chemicals, so the contribution of wind power to global warming and pollution is essentially zero.
However, they can be a threat to avian wildlife. Estimates on the number of winged animal
fatalities due to wind turbines vary wildly, from roughly 10,000 to 440,000. For sense of scope,
roughly one billion are killed by collisions with buildings. Wind turbines are also very loud, which
makes them less accepted in densely populated residential areas. The cost of wind power is
competitive with the cost of fossil fuel power, but much cheaper than solar.
1)

The decision was made to remove a lengthy, technical discussion about the electromagnetic principles at
work behind the electric generators used in wind turbines. This information would have been dry to read
and distract from the overall focus of this text, so it was removed in the interest of conciseness.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

11

Figure 3. Image of a wind power plant (Bitencourt)

Hydroelectric
Similar to wind power, hydroelectric power is produced by using the motion of a natural
movement of the environment to drive a turbine and a generator. However, hydroelectric power
is produced by damming a body of water and capturing waters motion as it flows downstream.
Unlike wind power, hydroelectric power is far less dependent on the swings of nature since bodies
of water rarely completely dry up (Ahola, Hydroelectricity: Energy Source). Hydroelectric power
is also a renewable resource that produces almost no pollution, so it would be effective at reducing
the environmental impact of energy generation.
The environmental effects of the construction of hydroelectric power plants are complex.
Hydroelectric dams are typically used for the same purposes as traditional dams; to increase the
local water supply, prevent flooding, clear debris from the river or lake, and provide irrigation for

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

12

farming. Dams also create controlled lakes, which attract tourists and recreation seekers. The
lakes water level, shores, and fish population can be controlled as needed.
Unfortunately, dams unquestionably damage environment in which they are built. Large
areas of forested land are usually destroyed with the creation of the lake that results from lake
construction. Dams can interfere with the migration of local fish and other freshwater creatures.
The rupture of a dam can also be absolutely catastrophic for the surrounding area. Hydroelectric
power does provide the cheapest utility scale power of any of the researched options, at 3.3 cents
per kilowatt hour.
Nuclear
In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the
work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may
become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by
which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements
would be generated. Now it appears almost certain that this could be achieved in
the immediate future. (Einstein, 1939)
The above quote is a sample from a letter written by Albert Einstein to President Franklin
D. Roosevelt to share the news of the discovery of nuclear energy, as well as to warn him of its
potential dangers1. Nuclear power has the potential to play a very large role in our nations energy
future. It is the only known source of power that emits almost no pollution while creating massive
amounts of energy from a small amount of fuel.
1)

I felt that this section introduction, while not typical for an engineering report, would be interesting to the
reader. In this instance, I deemed creativity and multimodality more important than brevity.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

13

Typically, small pellets of uranium 235 are used to create a nuclear reactions (How Do
Nuclear). When the uranium atoms are split, a massive amount of heat energy is released, which
is used to turn nearby water reservoirs into steam. When this steam rises, it rotates the blades of
a turbine, which spins a generator, creating electricity. The steam is then cooled into water and
stored to be used again.

Figure 4. Image showing how each of the major components of a nuclear power
plant work together to produce energy. (Backgrounder on the Three, 2014).
Kharecha and Hansen are proponents of nuclear power, stating that an estimated 1.84
million lives have been saved because of nuclear power due to reduced CO2 emissions and the
dangers of other energy sources, while only 4900 deaths have been caused by nuclear meltdowns
and radiation poisoning (2013). They praise nuclear power for its cleanliness, as well as energy
generation potential and longevity compared to other energy sources, and predict that with the

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

14

right improvements, it can be made more efficient, safer, and produce less waste than it does
currently (2010). Nuclear power is also one of the cheapest ways to produce energy on a utility
scale, at 3.5 cents per kilowatt hour
One of the largest obstacles in the way of nuclear power plants is the general reluctance
and distrust that many people have towards them. This fear is rooted in the uncertainty
surrounding the dangers of nuclear fission. It is well known that too much exposure to nuclear
radiation can cause gene mutations, leading to cancer and other serious diseases. Radiation
cannot be seen or felt, and the idea of man-made nuclear radiation is still relatively modern. Bland
states,
The reason is simple, at least as far as the public debate goes: those fuel sources
do not share a scientific basis, and a name, with the most terrifyingly destructive
force ever devised by humanity. Radiation is a scary thing, much less graspable
than a car crash or a house fire or any of the other dangers that kill people in very
much larger numbers every year. You cant see it, you dont understand it, and you
wont notice when it is hurting you. And these factors, it seems to me, exert a much
larger influence on public attitudes to nuclear power than anything more rational
with possibly disastrous results. (2013)
However, the fear is not completely irrational because the generation of nuclear power is
not without its faults. The three largest nuclear catastrophes in history are the Chernobyl accident
(1986), The 3 Mile Island accident (1979), and the Fukushima accident (2011). The Chernobyl and
3 Mile Island disasters were caused by human oversight and lack of emergency preparedness,
while the Fukushima meltdown was caused by an earthquake and tsunami that originated in the

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

15

ocean near it. Chernobyl is considered the largest nuclear catastrophe of all time, and 3 Mile Island
was the worst nuclear disaster on American soil. Both of these accidents were caused by a
combination of outdated instrumentation and lack of properly trained personnel on site
(Backgrounder on the Three, 2014). The plant at Fukushima was built at roughly the same time
as the two previously mentioned plants, but it was maintained much more carefully and the
workers at the plant were knowledgeable about what to do in the event of an accident.
Unfortunately, no amount of precautions taken could have protected it from the incredibly severe
earthquake and following tsunami that occurred several miles away from the plant (Gunderson,
2013). Fukushima and Chernobyl exposed nearby humans to more nuclear radiation than is usual
for a human body, but only at Chernobyl was the radiation level high enough to cause immediate
harm. Approximately 30 people were killed as a result of the Chernobyl accident, and it is the only
nuclear accident known to be directly linked to human deaths ("Chernobyl Accident," 2016).
Another concern of using nuclear reactions to generate power is the matter of waste
disposal. This topic has been debated for countless hours among proponents and adversaries of
nuclear energy alike. Nuclear waste disposal is a very heated topic due to how dangerous it can be
if not treated with proper care. When a nuclear reaction occurs, radioactive isotopes of smaller
elements are emitted that can remain radioactive for thousands of years. The waste produced by
a nuclear power plant is incredibly small, but poses a large threat because being in the same room
as unshielded waste can be lethal in seconds. The waste could also potentially be stolen and used
to create weapons. There is currently no known way to safely destroy this waste, at best it can
only be contained. A method of disposing of nuclear waste that eliminates the need to be

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

16

concerned about either of these problems is essential for nuclear energy to become an integral
part of our energy production system ("What Is Nuclear?").
Solar
The final major energy source is solar power. The sun is the original energy source for the
entire planet. Plants have been deriving power from the sun for billions of years and none of the
life we know could be sustained without it. It is logical that we take advantage of the sun rays that
shine down on the earth constantly, but so far plants are far better at converting sunlight to energy
than we are.
Solar power is currently the most expensive of the proposed methods for nationwide
energy generation. At 7.7 cents per kilowatt hour, it costs more than double what some of the
other methods of energy production cost. Solar power also only works during the day, and only
works best on very sunny days when the atmosphere is clear of clouds and pollution (Rinkesh,
2015). This means that in addition to the solar panels, a large infrastructure for energy storage
would be needed, so that power could be stored when it is abundantly sunny and used later as
needed. Solar power plants require a large amount of land to be dedicated only to producing
power, as solar panels require maximum surface area to be effective and cannot have anything
blocking the sunlight above them. Many of the solar panels in use today are placed on the roofs
of buildings and homes.
Solar power is yet another renewable energy source that causes no pollution and does not
produce the gasses associated with global warming. Whether sunlight is captured or not does
nothing to affect the sun will continue to send out energy at a near constant rate for billions of

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

17

years. Solar panels are also completely silent and require almost no maintenance because they
have no moving parts.
The following sample from the biography Elon Musk, Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a
Fantastic Future, shares the views of billionaire inventor Elon Musk on solar power. His views are
especially relevant because he co-founded SolarCity, one of the United States most successful
solar energy companies and is the founder and current CEO of Tesla Motors, an electric vehicle
company.
SolarCity, like the rest of Musks ventures, did not represent a business
opportunity so much as it represented a worldview. Musk had decided long ago
in his very rational manner that solar made sense. Enough solar energy hits the
Earths surface in about an hour to equal one years worth of worldwide energy
consumption from all sources put together. Improvements in the efficiency of solar
panels have been happening at a steady clip. If solar is destined to be mankinds
preferred energy source in the future, then this future ought to be brought about as
quickly as possible. (Vance, 2016)
Musk is not the only proponent of solar power. In 2014, an entertaining video by the name
of Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! achieved internet fame (Brusaw 2014). This video describes a
system of high-tech interlocking hexagonal solar panels invented by Scott and Julie Brusaw that
could replace any paved surface. In this video, the argument is made that all of the roads,
driveways, sidewalks, and parking lots in the world should be replaced with these panels.
According to Scott and Julies estimates, if all of the roads in the United States were replaced with
their solar panels, the United States would produce three times the amount of energy it currently

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

18

uses. In addition to energy production, these panels could provide a myriad of other benefits. They
are covered in colored LED lights, so road lines and parking lot lines would be programmed rather
than painted, and could quickly be changed as needed. They contain pressure sensors, so major
road debris and crossing wildlife could be detected. The panels also contain heating elements, so
roads could be kept above freezing during snowy weather to prevent ice buildup. Sections of road
would be easy to replace if necessary because the hexagonal panels can be individually removed
and replaced. The panels also contain powerlines, telephone lines, and high speed internet cables
which would keep the lines safer than hanging above ground.
The Solar Freakin Roadways idea is not without flaws. Implementing a system nationwide,
as proposed could be extremely expensive (Anderson, 2014). This price is due to the cost to
implement lights, heaters, and enough glass to continuously support the weight of cars and trucks
for decades, as well as the already high price of solar panels. Another concern is cleanliness. These
roadways would rely on a specialized glass that can support the vehicles above, yet clean enough
to allow sunlight through; no easy task given the amount of tire tracks, oil spills, and litter that
would occur. Positioning solar panels on every rooftop would be less expensive, while still
providing the necessary power during the day.
Conclusion
Each method of energy generation includes its own set of advantages and disadvantages:
there is no perfect energy source. It seems evident that we move away from our current
dependency on fossil fuels as much as possible as they by far cause the most human health
concerns and do the most environmental damage. Many cleaner methods of energy generation
have arrived at a comfortable place technologically: they have been proven reliable and affordable

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

19

enough to completely match the energy generation of past energy sources with fewer drawbacks.
However, no method stands out as a clear winner. Each has a series of conditions required for
maximum power output that will not be met in any geography all of the time.
The best use of wind power would be on existing traditional farms, spaced out between
the crops. This would not create noise in populated areas and would not require large tracts of
land to be zoned for power production. However, wind turbines would still be completely
dependent on the local availability of wind. Hydroelectric dams can only exist on flowing water
and necessitate significant damage be done to the surrounding area. Certainly all of the dams
already in existence today should be used to maximum potential, but it would be unrealistic to
recommend hydroelectric power alone as a viable nationwide energy source without expecting
many massive construction projects and environmental disturbances.
Nuclear power plants can generate an immense amount of energy from very little fuel,
but will always allow for the possibility of a nuclear meltdown, despite all of the precautions that
could be taken. Nuclear waste is also a concern, as there is no method currently in place for
waste disposal. The only way to completely avoid the very toxic effects of nuclear waste is to
remove it from the planet completely. One option is to jettison the nuclear waste into space
using a multistage rocket, but this would be costly and a failure at launch would be catastrophic.
In the past, waste has successfully been stored at a remote location in the Sierra Nevada desert,
far from any civilization or wildlife. However, waste storage still allows the possibility of terrorist
attacks and thievery, so this site was shut down.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

20

Solar power has the potential to play a large part in the United States energy future. It is
fully renewable and does not pollute. Nationwide solar panels could be implemented in a way
that would cause no damage to wildlife habitats and require no additional space; by positioning
them in place of roads or on top of roofs. Putting solar panels on roofs would be cheaper and
easier than using them to replace roads, because they would not need to be covered in
specialized glass to support vehicles and would be easier to keep clean. However, regardless of
the positioning of the panels, they would all be subject to the downfalls of solar as an energy
source. Depending on the time of year, the continental United States is completely untouched by
sunlight for 6 to 12 hours of each day. During this time, a completely different provider of energy
would be needed. One possible solution is the liberal use of batteries. If enough batteries were
in place nationwide, excess sunlight captured during the day could be stored to be used at night.
Unfortunately, the capacity of batteries is greatly affected by high or low temperature extremes,
and the sheer volume of batteries needed to power the entire country for a night would be
unfeasibly large.
Proposal
Any proposal1 for energy production nationwide must rely on more than one energy
source. Each source has too great of pitfalls to be the sole provider of power. The ideal plan
requires a combination of the currently existing energy sources working together to provide
abundant, reliable power to the entire country.
1)

I had intended to write the conclusions section after the proposal section, where the conclusion would give a
brief summary of the proposal, as is typical for engineering reports. The proposal section would include my
actual plan after a few paragraphs dissecting the points made in the literary review. However, I realized it
made more sense from a conciseness perspective to dedicate the conclusions section to summarizing and
theorizing about each energy source, so the proposal section could focus only on my proposal.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

21

During the day, solar roadways, rather than rooftops can be used. Solar rooftops are
cheaper, but solar roadways offer a number of previously listed benefits, including an integrated
powerline system. Using these powerlines, energy from alternative sources can easily be routed
everywhere in the country at night, when the solar panels are no longer collecting sunlight.
Currently, national energy consumption during the nighttime hours is 2/3rds of what is consumed
per hour during the day (EIA, 2011). This means that coal power, which currently produces 33% of
the Nations power and is responsible for most of the negatives associated with fossil fuels could
be completely phased out. Each of the other energy sources, would remain in place, but no new
power plants would need built and they would only be run at night, which would greatly reduce
the cost of operation and any pollution that occurs. This system would provide enough energy for
the country at all times, reduce global warming, and improve the quality of the air, at the expense
of a high price tag.
According to Brusaw, of Solar Freakin Roadways fame, covering the entire country in solar
roadways would produce three times the amount of energy currently consumed nationwide.
Assuming this to be true, then 2/3rds of the panels could be dummy panels, simple placeholders
with LED but no solar cell. These panels could be built very cheaply as they would not contain the
expensive solar panels and would not need specialized glass. If one simple panel costs 1/10th the
price of a solar collecting panel, the total price of implementing solar roadways would be reduced
by 60%, ignoring construction costs. The problem of solar road cleanliness could be solved by
street sweepers armed with glass cleaner driving occasional routes.
To further help with the cost of this system, a slow rollout will be necessary. This
technology should first be used in small settings, like parking lots and sidewalks of large cities, until

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

22

the idea can be refined and done less expensively. Once these panels begin to replace roads, they
should first be used in areas with high disposable income that would take pride in being an early
adopter of a technology that will change the Nations energy future, like New York City, Portland
Oregon, or Greenville South Carolina. As more cities implement solar roadways, the price will
continue to fall, and these roadways can begin to replace highways. Eventually enough of a solar
road infrastructure will exist to begin removing existing powerlines and relying on the ones
imbedded in roadways. Eventually, solar roadways will be used in even the most rural areas,
creating a cleaner and safer future for the United States.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

23

References
Ahola, J., Konwinski, K., Kossak, P., & Ramsey, S. (n.d.). Hydroelectricity: Energy Source of the
Future. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://msu.edu/~ramseys3/lbs171/
Anderson, J. (2014, May 23). Why the Solar Roadways Project on Indiegogo is Actually Really
Silly. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://www.equities.com/news/why-the-solarroadways-project-on-indiegogo-is-actually-really-silly
Backgrounder on the Three Mile Island Accident. (2014, December 12). Retrieved July 24, 2016,
from http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html
Bland, A. (2013, September 16). Our fear of nuclear energy may cost us the earth. Retrieved
July 15, 2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/our-fear-of-nuclearenergy-may-cost-us-the-earth-8820161.html
Bitencourt, V. (n.d.). Osrio Wind Farm [Digital image]. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from
https://pixabay.com/en/osrio-wind-farm-osrio-brazil-1403824/
Brusaw, S. (Writer). (2014, May 18). Solar FREAKIN' Roadways! [Youtube].
Bullis, K. (2013). Safer Nuclear Power, at Half the Price. Retrieved July 15, 2016, from
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/512321/safer-nuclear-power-at-half-the-price/
Cohen, B. L. (1990). Environmental problems with coal, oil, and gas. In THE NUCLEAR ENERGY
OPTION (p. 3). Plenum Press.
Conca, J. (2012, June 15). The Naked Cost of Energy -- Stripping Away Financing and Subsidies.

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

24

Retrieved July 24, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/15/thenaked-cost-of-energy-stripping-away-financing-and-subsidies/#34b1b95b2c3c

Chernobyl Accident 1986. (2016, June). Retrieved July 24, 2016, from http://www.worldnuclear
.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx
Department of Energy. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from http://energy.gov/
Einstein, A. (1939, August 02). [Letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt]. Long Island, New
York, New York.
Gunderson, A. (Writer). (2013, October 8). Japans Triple Meltdown: Tour of Fukushima Daiichi
Nuclear Power Plant [Online Video].
How Do Nuclear Plants Work? (n.d.). Retrieved July 25, 2016, from https://www.duke
energy.com/about-energy/generating-electricity/nuclear-how.asp
Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power. Environmental Science & Technology
Environ. Sci. Technol.
Kharecha, P. A., Kutscher, C. F., Hansen, J. E., & Mazria, E. (2010). Options for Near-Term
Phaseout of CO 2 Emissions from Coal Use in the United States. Environmental Science
& Technology Environ. Sci. Technol.
Maehlum, M. A. (2015, March 23). Wind Energy Pros and Cons - Energy Informative. Retrieved
July 26, 2016, from http://energyinformative.org/wind-energy-pros-and-cons/
Rinkesh. (2015, May 10). Pros and Cons of Solar Energy - Conserve Energy Future. Retrieved July

PROPOSAL FOR EFFECTIVE ENERGY GENERATION IN THE UNITED STATES

26, 2016, from http://www.conserve-energy-future.com/pros-and-cons-of-solarenergy.php

What is Nuclear? / Nuclear Waste. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from
https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/waste.html
U.S. Energy Information Administration / Monthly Energy Review. (2016, June). Table.
U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis. (2011, April
6). Retrieved July 28, 2016, from http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=830
US Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved July 15, 2016, from
https://www3.epa.gov/
Vance, A. (2016). Elon Musk Tesla, SpaceX, and the quest for a fantastic future. New York, NY:
Ecco.
Walker, E., PhD, & Payne, D., MPH. (n.d.). A Report from Kentucky Environmental Foundation.
Retrieved July 24, 2016, from http://www.kyenvironmentalfoundation.org/uploads
/1/8/5/9/18595042/kef_health_impact_assessment_energy_report_web.pdf
Zelman, J. (n.d.). Nuclear Power History: Timeline From Inception To Fukushima. Retrieved
July 15, 2016, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/timeline-nuclearpower-history-fukushima_n_1593278.html

25