by Rick O'Connor | Aug 17, 2025
In Part 15 of this series, we mentioned the need to begin seeking new sources of energy. Currently fossils fuels are our go-to source, but this source is limited, and the demand is rising. There are also issues with the waste produced from the drilling, processing, and burning of fossil fuels. Just as we moved from wood to coal, and from coal to oil – we need now to begin looking for what will follow oil. What options do we have?
Drilling platform.
Photo: Florida Museum of Natural History
Is oil still an option?
As most know, crude oil and natural gas are found in pockets beneath the earth’s surface. We extract it by drilling deep wells, using gravity to drive the product towards the well head, and pump it to the surface. At some point in time, usually about a decade, the pressure is lower and the well has reached peak production. At that point we need to drive another well, sometimes in another location. With the demand for this energy source rising, peak production wells are becoming common and new sources of oil are becoming harder to find. The United States is particularly in a situation due the fact we use more oil than any other nation (24% of the world’s oil in 2011). Much of the oil reserves are outside of the U.S. and managed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) – which includes 12 nations. OPEC stated that since 1984 oil production from existing reserves has exceeded the discoveries or new sources – this resource is diminishing. It was predicted in 2011 that by 2025 70% of our oil needs would come from imports. However, there was a decline in imports beginning around 2005 and today 60% of our oil use comes from domestic sources. Here are some advantages and disadvantages of continuing with oil posted in 2011.
| Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Ample supply for 40-100 years |
Need to find substitutes within 50 years |
| Low cost |
Large government subsides |
| Easily transported within and between countries |
Pollutes air when produced and burned |
| Technologies are well developed |
Can cause water pollution as well |
Is natural gas an option?
Much of the natural gas reserves (27%) are found in Russia. Other leading producers include Iran and Qatar – the U.S. only produces 3%. This fossil fuel can be used to power factories, cook and heat homes, and power transportation. Though extracting and burning natural gas produces greenhouse gases, it is less than coal and oil. It can be transported across oceans if liquified.
| Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Ample supplies |
Releases CO2 when burned |
| High net energy yield |
Government subsides |
| Low cost |
Methane can leak from pipelines |
| Less air pollution than other fossil fuels |
Difficult to transfer from one country to another |
Is coal still an option?
In 2011 about 40% of the world’s electricity was generated by coal fired power plants. There has been a decline over the last decade, with a particular drop during the pandemic, but it has seemed to have rebounded some since with an current estimated of about 33% of the world’s electricity being produced by coal. Due to the pollution issues many nations have already begun to turn away from coal. According to the International Energy Agency, China is currently burning three times more coal than all other countries combined. However, this is expected to plateau by 2027. It is the world’s most abundant fossil fuel source. The US Geological Survey estimated in 2011 that coal could last between 214 and 1,125 years. Today the current reserves in the US could last another 422 years. The pollution issue is not only carbon dioxide but sulfur dioxide and trace amounts of mercury, and radioactive materials – it is the “dirtiest” fuel.
| Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Ample supplies |
Severe land disturbance, air pollution, and water pollution |
| High net energy yield |
Soot is a human health risk |
| Low cost |
Large government subsides |
| Well-developed technology |
High CO2 emissions when produced and burned |
Is nuclear energy an option?
For the purpose of boiling water to produce steam that spins a turbine and generates electricity, nuclear power plants are quite complex and expensive. The fuel is mined uranium which is enriched from 0.7% fissionable uranium-235 to about 3%. It is made into pellets. These pellets are about the size of a pencil eraser and each pellet contains the energy equivalent to a ton of coal. These pellets are placed into pipes called fuel rods. The rods are moved in and out of the reactor to control the reaction and avoid a meltdown which could release large amounts of radioactive material. The system is cooled by water. This system is encased in a thick concrete structure called a containment shell to avoid the accidental release of radioactive material. About once a year the spent fuel rods are removed, placed in holding tanks, and transported to an underground holding facility for long term storage – between 10,000 and 240,000 years. However, after 60 years of using this form of energy – no country has developed such a storage facility, and the spent rods are currently stored on site.
In the 1950s researchers predicted that by the year 2000 at least 1,800 nuclear plants would supply 21% of the world’s energy. In 2011, after large investments and government subsidies, there were 439 commercial power plants in 30 countries producing only 6% of the world’s energy. That number has not changed. Reasons for the decline include construction costs, operating costs, low net energy yield, public safety concerns, and increased safety regulations.
| Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Ample supply of fuel |
Cannot compete economically without government subsides |
| Low environmental impact (without accidents) |
Low net energy yield |
| Moderate land use |
Risk of catastrophic accidents |
| Low risk of accidents due to large number of safety systems |
Long term storage problem |
|
Subject to terrorist attacks |
|
Spread knowledge and technology for building nuclear weapons |
Listed above are the advantages and disadvantages of fossil fuel and nuclear energy – systems we have been using for a while. With the concern of climate change, and other environmental risks, humans have begun looking at other energy sources. In the next article we will look at those. Either way – we still need the energy.
References
Coal. The International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/fossil-fuels/coal.
Coal Explained. How Much Coal Is Left? U.S. Energy Information Agency. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/coal/how-much-coal-is-left.php.
Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.
by Rick O'Connor | Aug 11, 2025
This is an interesting resource to discuss in this series. Everyone would agree that we need food, water, and space – but do we need energy? Other creatures on this planet do fine without electricity, machines, and alternative transportation – do we really need it? You could debate this for hours, but the bottom line is we now have it and yes… we need it.
Power plant on one of the panhandle estuaries.
Photo: Flickr
Miller1 begins this topic with a brief history of energy use by humans. Early humans survived on muscle power alone and would require about 2000 kilocalories per human/per day – most of this energy was obtained from their food. A modern human from the United States would require 2000 kilocalories/day to maintain their muscle power and an additional 600,000 kilocalories/day to maintain the machines and systems of our modern lives. This is 600,000 kilocalories/human/day.
The first alternative energy source was fire and was used to keep people warm and cook their food. When humans began farming, they used domesticated animals to do much of the heavy work of plowing and transportation. Later they began to use the wind to pump water from the ground and move sailing vessels across waterways. They learned to use flowing water as a mode of transportation and for grinding grain. They eventually used flowing water to produce electricity.
As we moved into the industrial age, machines would do a lot of our work but needed an energy source to do so. Wood was the initial fuel. Burning wood could produce steam that would operate the motors that would lead to some of our greatest innovations. Trains could haul people and goods over long distances in a much shorter time than domesticated animals could. The steam engine allowed vessels to travel in locations where wind was not reliable. Wood burning stoves would heat our homes and cook our food. However, the growing demand for wood led to its demise. We harvested it faster than new trees could grow back. We faced our first energy crisis.
We solved this crisis by switching from wood to coal. There were several problems with coal. One was the amount one needed to power our machines. You could transport tons of coal to local factories, coal cars on trains to power the locomotives, and in the hulls of ships to get them across the ocean – but the amount you need to move larger trains and ships provided a storage problem. Two, coal burns dirty. The air all around cities and factories became black with smoke, and tailings from the mining of coal polluted local waterways. Despite the pollution problem, humans needed energy and were fine with burning coal.
In 1859 humans discovered how to pump oil from the ground. Oil could be refined into diesel and gasoline and could power engines but did not require the storage space that coal did. So, transportation could now move more people and goods than coal would allow. Though coal was still used to produce our electricity – which we used for cooking and heating our homes, oil became the go-to energy source for transportation. Eventually many would switch from coal to natural gas (refined from oil or found in the ground near the oil) to produce electricity.
In the 1950s we discovered how to produce enormous amounts of energy by splitting uranium atoms. This new source of energy was used to produce electricity until the safety concerns became too high and nuclear power production decreased.
Today about 82% of our energy still comes from the burning of fossil fuels. There are pollution issues associated with this – including changing our climate – but the need for energy is greater now, with over 8 billion people on the planet. We have entered a new energy crisis. As with wood, fossil fuel sources are limited, demand is rising, pollution and habitat degradation from burning and drilling for fossil fuels is becoming a serious problem.
In our next article we look at evaluating the energy choices we currently have as to which may be the best choice for our future.
Reference
1 Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.
by Rick O'Connor | Aug 4, 2025
As our human population grows, so grow urban and suburban areas – and our natural areas and farms are decreasing. Much of this will cause problems for us and other species on the planet as well. How do we manage this need for space?
Some cities such as Hong Kong and Tokyo have responded by building vertically. Large apartment complexes provide not only homes, by grocery stores and gyms. Most are located within walking distance from work – and if they are not close to work, they use mass transit. We see this in some cities in the American northeast as well. This is known as compact development and has been pushed by many city planners and demographers.
Heavy urban development “sprawls” away from the city in many U.S. communities. The “corridor” to work has become congested.
Photo: Rick O’Connor
However, the United States, Canada, and Australia are car dependent communities. Our car dependency began in the early 20th century when we had land to expand, gasoline was cheap, and cars actually became “part of us”. We did not just own cars we had specific cars with specific colors. They became part of our personality – and to get rid of them will be very difficult.
Some scientists and economists suggest one way to reduce car use, and the energy they require and pollution they generate, is what would be termed – user pays approach. Ideas such as taxes on gasoline have been suggested. The funds generated by such taxes could go to build bike paths and more mass transit systems. This has been tough to do in the U.S. because (a) most communities do not have an efficient mass transit system or bike paths, and (b) we do not want taxes. Other methods suggested to reduce car use include parking fees, toll roads, bridge tolls, etc.
There are some disadvantages to alternative methods of transportation. Bicycles do not protect you in bad weather, are impractical for long trips, and offer little protection in an accident. Mass transit rail systems are expensive to build and maintain, commit riders to set schedules, and are cost effective only in densely populated areas. Buses require low fares, and the bus companies lose money, can get caught in heavy traffic, and also require set schedules.
Other suggestions include better land use planning. Methods tried here include limit building permits, including green belts in community design, encouraging mixed use of homes and small businesses, and concentrating development along mass transit rail lines.
The bottom line is to concentrate humans in areas where they live close to where they work and the resources they need. Walkable cities will reduce the need for expansion into nearby land space and farms which will allow for more green spaces the ecological services they provide for our existence.
Reference
Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.
by Rick O'Connor | Jul 25, 2025
We all have our personal space, our personal bubble, where we do not like others to enter. Some have a small bubble, but others have a much larger one. This will play a part in the discussion below but the statement “we need space” initially means – we must have some place to lie our head. All creatures do. Battles between birds, bears, and berries all take place for their piece of land where they will obtain their resources and call home. And with the population growth we see in humans, we are all seeing and feeling our personal space being invaded.
Much of the land in Florida is being developed.
Photo: University of Florida
Almost everyone reading this has experienced it. Some have homes on properties that are over 100 acres. Others have a house on only one city block. Others live on a city block where there are four houses. And others live on a city block that has a high rise with 200 apartments. Everywhere crowds are increasing. There is more traffic, more homes, more malls and strip malls. We are growing very fast. I have recently seen housing developments where people moved in BEFORE the house was done. We are feeling the growth of the human population and trying to maintain our space. And… as the human population grows there is need for more space.
Between 1800 and 2008 the percentage of the U.S. population living in cities increased from 5% to 79%. It began first with people moving from farms to the major cities. Then, due to crowding and congestion, people began to move from the central cities to what were called suburbs. Since 1980 people began to move from the crowded northeastern U.S. to the south and the west. Between 2008 and 2043 demographers (scientist who study populations) project that the fastest growing U.S. states will be Nevada, Arizona, and Florida. Currently (2025) the fastest growing state is the District of Columbia, followed by Florida and Texas. The largest state at over 39 million is California – followed by Texas (over 31 million) and Florida (over 23 million). States that are currently experiencing a decline in population include New York, Illinois, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, and West Virgina. Since the 1990s people have begun to move from the suburbs back to the farm areas – but not to farm – they are developing these rural areas into housing developments. We need space.
This urban sprawl has been supported by having automobiles and low-cost gasoline – most of these people still work in the cities. It is also supported by the fact people do not want to live in high rise buildings with 200+ apartments on one city block. We want more space – our bubble is bigger. In many locations these suburb communities are beginning to merge creating megalopolis – metro areas where you cannot really tell where one town ends and the next begins. Humans are spreading across the landscape like cancer. I have flown from Pensacola to Denver many times. As you look out the window of the airplane you can witness how our species has just engulfed the landscape – everywhere.
Heavy traffic is common place in the U.S. with our dependence on cars.
Photo: Rick O’Connor
These large urban areas have created some problems for us. They require high levels of energy to operate – and they do not produce their own energy. They generate tons of solid waste – and there is nowhere to dispose of it. They require large amounts of food – and they do not grow it. They require large amounts of water – and in some cases have their own source, but in many they do not. There is a lot of air and water pollution – it was because of regions like this the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were created. There are few green spaces, trees are removed for development. Flooding, spreading diseases, and noise pollution are all issues.
The suburbs have their own problems. Traffic is heavy, and streets are crowded. There is the need for new schools, new stores, and new office space – often in areas that do not have the infrastructure to support them.
With a growing population there is a need for more space – but it is pretty obvious that how we are doing it is not sustainable and continues to create more problems for us and the rest of the planet. In our next article we will look at how to solve some of these problems.
References
Fastest Growing States in 2025. World Population Review. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/fastest-growing-states.
Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.
by Rick O'Connor | Jul 19, 2025
We stated in the last article that we have plenty of water on our planet; we just do not manage it well. So, what are some ways to do this? Below we will review some ideas provided by Miller and Spoolman back in 2011 and we will add a few more.
Is Extracting More Groundwater the Answer?
Groundwater that is used to supply cities and grow food is being pumped from aquifers in some areas faster than it is renewed by precipitation. Some advantages of this method include the water is useful for drinking and irrigation, its available year-round, and there is no evaporation loss. The disadvantages include it is being depleted, sinking of land (subsidence) occurs from over pumping, some aquifers have been polluted by deep well injection of waste. The largest aquifer in the world is the Ogallala Aquifer found beneath South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. It is showing signs of severe overdraft particularly near Texas and New Mexico. Methods of managing this water source would include wasting less water, restricting the number of wells allowed, planting crops and landscapes that require less water.
This is a common method used to irrigate crops across the U.S.
Photo: UF IFAS
Is Building More Dams the Answer?
Building dam and reservoir systems has greatly increased water supplies in some areas, but it has disrupted ecosystems (causing other financial losses) and displaced people. Some positive aspects of creating reservoirs are creating a large source of water, recreational uses in these new lakes, and the dams produce low-cost electricity. But the negatives include the new lakes that flood cropland and displace people, evaporation loss of this needed resource is very high, disrupts the migration and spawning of many species of fish (some of which are economically valuable). With some current dam systems, the rivers are running dry downstream, and the lakes are shrinking. We saw this firsthand at the Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River in Arizona.
Glen Canyon at the Utah/Arizona border.
Photo: NOAA
Is Transferring Water from One Place to Another the Answer?
Transferring water from one place to another has greatly increased supplies in some areas, but it has also disrupted ecosystems and commercial ventures in others. One place this has been used is the California Water Project – where water from wooded northern California has been piped to the deserts of southern California. For decades battles have been fought as to how much of this water should be sent south. Southern California uses this water in large agriculture projects and for large cities like Los Angeles and San Diego. 75% of this water is used in agriculture – but often for water thirsty crops like rice and alfalfa being grown in desert conditions. Northern California contends that these water transfers reduce the ability to flush pollutants from San Fransico Bay and has reduced important fisheries. They argue that southern California could help by using better irrigation methods and crop selection. Several studies suggest that climate change will reduce the amount of water currently available in this system and they are already over pumping their ground water. In 2011 China was planning a similar project moving water from southern part of the country to the north. But will this solve our water management problems?
Is Desalination of Seawater the Answer?
There is certainly plenty of seawater – and we know how to convert seawater to freshwater – but the cost is high, and the resulting salty brine must be disposed of without harming aquatic or terrestrial ecosystems. In 2004 there were about 15,000 desalination plants around the world – that number has not increased much over the last 20 years. Most were in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia had the largest number, followed by the U.S. Almost 50% of Isarel’s water was produced from desalination. In addition to high cost and issues with what to do with the brine produced, there is the problem of adding chemicals to this water as it is being piped to reduce algae. This chemical treatment has been shown to cause severe problems for natural ecosystems.
So, How Can We Use Water More Sustainably?
We can do so by reducing water waste, raising the price of water, slowing population growth, and protecting our aquifers and habitats that store and release water.
We can reduce irrigation waste by…
- Line irrigation canals
- Irrigate at night to reduce evaporation
- Monitor soil and irrigate only when needed
- Avoid growing water thirsty crops
- Irrigate with treated urban wastewater.
We can reduce water waste by…
- Redesign manufacturing systems so they use less water
- Recycle industrial water
- Landscape our yards with plants that require little or no water
- Use drip irrigation
- Raise water prices
- Use water saving toilets, showerheads, and front-loading clothes washers
- Collect and reuse household water for irrigation of nonedible plants.
How Can We Reduce the Threat of Flooding?
We can lessen the threat of flooding by protecting more wetlands and natural vegetation in watersheds and not building in areas subject to frequent flooding. You may have noticed with the recent building trends in the Florida panhandle, this is not being considered – but should.
Other ideas in conserving and reducing problems with water management include green roofs and Florida Friendly Landscaping. You can learn more about how to protect your water resources by visiting your local county extension office.
Reference
Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.
