by Rick O'Connor | Aug 25, 2025
Over the last couple of articles, we have seen how humans moved from a wood-based energy source to coal and from coal to oil. With the onset of the industrial revolution, new innovations such as electricity and transportation, our energy needs have increased – along with our population.
In Part 16 we looked at the advantages and disadvantages of continuing using fossil fuels for our energy needs. We also looked at nuclear energy. Many feel that these pros and cons are sufficient enough to continue with fossil fuels – for now. Others, including some energy companies, believe it is time to look for other alternatives. It is estimated that fossil fuels will last another 200-500 years, and as we get closer to those deadlines, prices will go up. And then there is the concern surrounding the environmental impacts of burning fossil fuels. Enter the renewables.
We can begin by making our homes, businesses, and vehicles more energy efficient.
Photo: UF IFAS
Miller and Spoolman1 begin their chapter on this topic but discussing energy efficiency – the idea of using our current energy sources more wisely and, possibly, extending the deadline. Many of us already use energy efficient appliances, energy efficient building designs, and energy efficient cars. Some of this is forced on us. Some are to help us reduce our energy costs. But this movement has already begun. Data from the U.S. Department of Energy in 2011 stated that fossil fuels accounted for 85% of our energy input. 84% of that energy became unavoidable energy waste (41%) and unnecessary energy waste (43%). Only 9% were converted into useful energy. The incandescent light bulb uses only 5-10% of its energy to produce light, the rest is lost as heat. 94% of the energy in the internal combustion engine is lost as heat. Only 34% of the energy used to burn coal actually becomes electricity.
In 2011 industry accounted for 30% of the worlds, and 38% of the U.S., energy consumption. Miller and Spoolman provide methods in which industry can become more energy efficient.
- Replace energy-wasting electric motors.
- Recycle materials like steel and other metals.
- Switch from low-efficient incandescent to fluorescent or LED lighting.
Many industries have already made such changes.
In 2011, transportation accounted for 67% of the oil consumption in the U.S. During the 1970s the federal government began requiring fuel efficient cars and trucks. Fuel efficiency increased until about 1985 were it peaked – it has remained at this level since. Though vehicles are more fuel efficient than they were in the 1960s, U.S. consumers still prefer large trucks and SUVs to more fuel-efficient vehicles. There has been recent interest in electric vehicles. But recent reports suggest some automakers may be reducing their inventory of such cars and trucks.
There is a whole new industry in energy efficient buildings – “green buildings”. Most of our buildings were not designed with energy efficiency in mind. For those there are some things we can do to improve energy efficiency.
- Insulate and plug leaks. Over 30% of American homes lose their heated air through holes, cracks, and single paned windows.
- Energy efficient windows. This can reduce heat/AC loss by over 50%.
- Use more energy efficient appliances.
- Use more energy efficient lighting.
Other suggestions within the home include;
- The attic. Hang reflective foil to reflect heat. Use a house fan. Be sure attic insulation is at least 12 inches thick.
- Install water saving toilets, faucets, and shower heads. Repair water leaks.
- Use microwave as much as possible. Run only full loads in the dishwater and use low – or no-heat – drying. Clean refrigerator coils regularly.
- Other rooms. Use compact fluorescent lighting and LED lighting. Turn off lights, TV, computers when not in use. Set the thermostat as low as possible in the winter, and as high as possible in the summer. Weather strip and caulk doors and windows. Use fans.
- Plant trees to shade/cool house.
In our next article we will begin looking at new forms of energy that could replace fossil fuels.
References
Miller, G.T., Spoolman, S.E. 2011. Living in the Environment. Brooks/Cole Cengage Learning. Belmont CA. pp. 674.
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 Scott Jackson | May 26, 2022
Nutrients found in food waste are too valuable to just toss away. Small scale composting and vermicomposting provide opportunity to recycle food waste even in limited spaces. UF/IFAS Photo by Camila Guillen.
During the summer season, my house is filled with family and friends visiting on vacation or just hanging out on the weekends. The kitchen is a popular place while waiting on the next outdoor adventure. I enjoy working together to cook meals, bbq, or just make a few snacks. Despite the increased numbers of visitors during this time, some food is leftover and ultimately tossed away as waste. Food waste occurs every day in our homes, restaurants, and grocery stores and not just this time of year.
The United States Food and Drug Administration estimates that 30 to 40 percent of our food supply is wasted each year. The United States Department of Agriculture cites food waste as the largest type of solid waste at our landfills. This is a complex problem representing many issues that require our attention to be corrected. Moving food to those in need is the largest challenge being addressed by multiple agencies, companies, and local community action groups. Learn more about the Food Waste Alliance at https://foodwastealliance.org
According to the program website, the Food Waste Alliance has three major goals to help address food waste:
Goal #1 REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF FOOD WASTE GENERATED. An estimated 25-40% of food grown, processed, and transported in the U.S. will never be consumed.
Goal #2 DONATE MORE SAFE, NUTRITIOUS FOOD TO PEOPLE IN NEED. Some generated food waste is safe to eat and can be donated to food banks and anti-hunger organizations, providing nutrition to those in need.
Goal #3 RECYCLE UNAVOIDABLE FOOD WASTE, DIVERTING IT FROM LANDFILLS. For food waste, a landfill is the end of the line; but when composted, it can be recycled into soil or energy.
All these priorities are equally important and necessary to completely address our country’s food waste issues. However, goal three is where I would like to give some tips and insight. Composting food waste holds the promise of supplying recycled nutrients that can be used to grow new crops of food or for enhancing growth of ornamental plants. Composting occurs at different scales ranging from a few pounds to tons. All types of composting whether big or small are meaningful in addressing food waste issues and providing value to homeowners and farmers. A specialized type of composting known as vermicomposting uses red wiggler worms to accelerate the breakdown of vegetable and fruit waste into valuable soil amendments and liquid fertilizer. These products can be safely used in home gardens and landscapes, and on house plants.
Composting meat or animal waste is not recommended for home composting operations as it can potentially introduce sources of food borne illness into the fertilizer and the plants where it is used. Vegetable and Fruit wastes are perfect for composting and do not have these problems.
Composting worms help turn food waste into valuable fertilizer. UF/IFAS Photo by Tyler Jones
Detailed articles on how vermicomposting works are provided by Tia Silvasy, UF/IFAS Extension Orange County at https://blogs.ifas.ufl.edu/orangeco/2020/12/10/vermicomposting-using-worms-for-composting and https://sfyl.ifas.ufl.edu/media/sfylifasufledu/orange/hort-res/docs/pdf/021-Vermicomposting—Cheap-and-Easy-Worm-Bin.pdf Supplies are readily available and relatively inexpensive. Please see the above links for details.
A small vermicomposting system would include:
• Red Wiggler worms (local vendors or internet)
• Two Plastic Storage Bins (approximately 30” L x 20” W x 17” H) with pieces of brick or stone
• Shredded Paper (newspaper or other suitable material)
• Vegetable and Fruit Scraps
Red Wiggler worms specialize in breaking down food scraps unlike earthworms which process organic matter in soil. Getting the correct worms for vermicomposting is an important step. Red Wigglers can consume as much as their weight in one day! Beginning with a small scale of 1 to 2 pounds of worms is a great way to start. Sources and suppliers can be readily located on the internet.
Worm “homes” can be constructed from two plastic storage bins with air holes drilled on the top. Additional holes put in the bottom of the inner bin to drain liquid nutrients. Pieces of stone or brick can be used to raise the inner bin slightly. Picture provided by UF/IFAS Extension Leon County, Molly Jameson
Once the worms and shredded paper media have been introduced into the bins, you are ready to process kitchen scraps and other plant-based leftovers. Food waste can be placed in the worm bins by moving along the bin in sections. Simply rotate the area where the next group of scraps are placed. See example diagram. For additional information or questions please contact our office at 850-784-6105.
Placing food scraps in a sequential order allows worms to find their new food easily. Contributed diagram by L. Scott Jackson
Portions of this article originally published in the Panama City News Herald
UF/IFAS is An Equal Opportunity Institution.
by Carrie Stevenson | Jul 6, 2018
Climate change. Those two simple words have the power to bring about a strong reaction in people. For many, the term is fraught with emotion—with worry, anger, and fear of the unknown. For others, these two words might elicit doubt or frustration. According to a multi-year, nationwide study conducted by George Mason and Yale Universities, as a country we react to the science of climate change along a spectrum of responses. On one end of the spectrum, people are “alarmed” (see a change in climate as a reality and taking action about it) and “concerned” (believe it is a serious issue but have not taken action). In the middle are those in different stages of understanding or awareness of climate issues, and characterized as “cautious”, “disengaged”, or “doubtful.” At the opposite end of the spectrum are the “dismissive”, which are that group of people who are actively opposed to action on climate change and may feel it is a conspiracy. These six categories were based on the responses of a large, in-depth survey conducted in 2008. Ten years later, researchers conducted the study again to see if attitudes had changed. Interestingly, they had—with the most noticeable shift out of the “disengaged” category, as people seemed to cast their lot with one side or the other.
| 2008/2009 |
Yale/George Mason Study Results |
2018 |
| 18% |
Alarmed (+3) |
21% |
| 33% |
Concerned (-3) |
30% |
| 19% |
Cautious (+2) |
21% |
| 12% |
Disengaged (-5) |
7% |
| 11% |
Doubtful (+1) |
12% |
| 7% |
Dismissive (+2) |
9% |
Table 1. 10-year comparison of “Global Warming’s Six Americas” Study. Source: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/about/projects/global-warmings-six-americas/
Looking at the data, respondents left the “disengaged” group and moved either towards doubtful and dismissive or towards the cautious category. It is likely that the 3% change out of “concerned” moved directly into “alarmed”, as extreme weather events and record temperatures over the last 10 years brought the impacts of a changing climate closer to home.
Data from a national study shows the level of agreement/disagreement on climate-based issues. Source: Yale/George Mason University
When the study is broken down by region, a minority of northwest Floridians believed human activities such as carbon emissions caused climate change. However ~65% of the same group believed climate change was happening (regardless of cause), and 80% responded that our country should fund research looking into renewable energy. The good news here is that while many of us do not agree on the cause of climate change, the majority of us agree on positive steps forward that may relieve some of its results.
For me, the take-home message of this study is that scientific understanding—on many issues, not just climate—is often along a spectrum based on exposure to research, personal interest/relevance, and cultural influences. When explaining any science-based concepts, it is important to know where your listener is coming from and start from there. It is unfortunate that we are in a time when many principles of science are taken as political positions and not products of unbiased scientific method. That being said, great thinkers from Galileo to Hawking have had their run-ins with popular opinion.
As the summer heat cooks on and hurricane season warms up, there will be more articles in the news about climate and its effects. When reading these, look at the source and their intent. Is this an opinion piece/blog with deeply emotional photos and stories meant to sway readers one way or the other? Or is it an agency page, reporting factual data? Time-tested agencies like the National Weather Service (NWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) have been keeping historic records of climate data and satellite imagery of ice cover for decades. Use their information to inform yourself, no matter where you might fall upon the “six Americas” spectrum. Worldwide data for climate has been kept since 1880, and both NASA and NOAA climate data found:
- 2016 was the hottest year globally on record
- 2nd and 3rd hottest years on record were 2015 and 2014.
- 16 of the 17 warmest years documented since 1880 have been since 2001
For more information on climate science, check out these resources: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NOAA Climate, and NASA Climate.
by Andrea Albertin | Jan 19, 2018
A poultry farm in North Florida used FDACS cost share funds to install solar panels for renewable energy production. Photo source: FDACS Office of Energy
Maximize your farm’s energy savings with FDACS’ free energy evaluations and cost share program
The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) Office of Energy is currently offering free energy evaluations and cost share funds to increase on-farm energy efficiency to agricultural producers in Florida. This includes all types of operations, such as row crop, fruit and vegetable farms, nurseries, livestock and poultry operations, dairies, and aquaculture farms.
What is an energy evaluation and how is it done?
The purpose of the free evaluations (which are valued at $4,500) is to let producers know how they can maximize energy efficiency and ultimately reduce costs on-farm. During these evaluations, members of a Mobile Energy Lab (MEL) walk through the operation with the producer, evaluating all forms of energy use. Since energy use is often linked to water use (irrigation pivots, for example), the team also assesses water use.
MEL teams are made up of energy experts contracted by FDACS from one of three universities: Florida A&M University, the University of Central Florida and the University of Florida. The MEL will be made up of members from the university closest to the farming operation being evaluated.
After the MEL team has finished the on-site visit, it prepares an evaluation and sends it to the producer. The evaluation details energy use and makes recommendations about how to increase efficiency on-farm. These recommendations depend on the operation and what the farmer is interested in doing. They can include switching to more efficient lighting, converting irrigation pumps from diesel to electric, using variable frequency drives (VFDs) on milk vacuum pumps in dairy operations and switching to or adding small-scale renewable energy generation, like solar or biomass, among others.
After a producer decides on changes she or he would like to make, FDACS offers 80% reimbursement (or cost-share) up to $25,000 to implement recommendations made in the evaluation.
An additional advantage of having a free energy evaluation completed by the MEL is that the evaluation can be used to apply for cost share funds from the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Producers could potentially receive cost share dollars from both FDACS and NRCS to increase on-farm energy efficiency.
A producer in the Suwanee Valley took advantage of cost share funds to switch from using a diesel irrigation pump (left) to an electric pump (right). Photo source: FDACS Office of Energy
What is the timeframe for applying for energy evaluations and cost share funds?
FDACS offers statewide evaluations and cost share through their FRED Program (Farm Renewable and Efficiency Demonstration). These funds are set to expire September 2018, and so any items or equipment obtained with cost share funds must be purchased and installed by September 2018.
To have enough time to apply for and receive an energy evaluation (which is the first step to obtaining cost share funds), applications for evaluations must be turned in to FDACS by February 1, 2018.
The good news is that a similar program will continue after September. However, it will be in a more geographically restricted area. The Office of Energy received BP RESTORE funds to continue funding energy evaluations and cost share in the Apalachicola and Suwannee River Basins. These funds will be available starting this spring. The office hopes to secure more RESTORE funds in the future to expand the geographic reach of the program.
It’s estimated that dairy farms with 50 cows or more could save 40-55% of milk vacuum pump costs by using a variable frequency drive or variable speed drive (VFD) (shown above) on milk vacuum pumps. Photo source: FDACS Office of Energy
Who is eligible for energy evaluations and cost share funds?
Producers that are eligible for NRCS EQIP funds are eligible for this energy program. As stated by FDACS, this means a producer has to:
- Have control of the land for the term of the proposed contract period.
- Be in compliance with the highly erodible land and wetland conservation provisions described in 7 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) Part 12.
- Have an interest in the agricultural operation as defined in 7 CFR Part 1400.
- The average adjusted gross income of the individual, joint operation or legal entity, may not exceed $900,000
If you have any questions about these requirements, please contact Takara Waller at the Office of Energy (contact information listed below).
How do you apply for an energy evaluation?
To apply for an energy evaluation, you need to submit an application to the FDACS Office of Energy. Application forms and instructions on how to submit them, as well as more information about the program can be found at http://www.freshfromflorida.com/Business-Services/Energy/Incentives-for-Agriculture-Producers
If you have any questions, Takara Waller from the Office of Energy can help guide you through the process. Her contact information is:
(850) 617-7470 (phone)
(850) 617- 7471 (fax)
Takara.Waller@FreshFromFlorida.com
For more information about NRCS EQIP cost share funds, contact your local NRCS office. Contact information for offices in the panhandle region can be found at https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/fl/contact/local/?cid=nrcs141p2_015022
Your local USDA Farm Services Agency can also provide more information about cost share programs related to energy. Contact information by county is found by selecting (or clicking on) the county of interest on the following map https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?service=page/CountyMap&state=FL&stateName=Florida&stateCode=12.
Remember: an energy evaluation is the first step in obtaining cost share funds to increase on-farm energy efficiency and savings.
