Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

So, what I’m wondering is if the color blue is a characteristic favorite color for engineers (and prospective engineers). After doing some research on the internet, here’s what I came up with about the color blue and what it means if you consider it to be your favorite color:

• Squidoo says “Blue is the overwhelming ‘favorite color.’ Blue is seen as trustworthy, dependable and committed. The color of sky and the ocean, blue is perceived as a constant in our lives.”
• Care2 says that the color blue is “soft, soothing, compassionate and caring, Blue is the color of deliberation and introspection, conservatism and duty. Patient, persevering, conscientious, sensitive and self-controlled, Blues like to be admired for their steady character and wisdom. They are faithful, but are often worriers with somewhat inflexible beliefs and can be too cautious, and suspicious of flamboyant behavior.”

Do you think that a person’s favorite color says something about his or her personality, and if so, does it make sense that many engineers say blue is their favorite color?

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Ruoff argues that complete energy independence in America can already be done without any further investment in research. The problems we Americans face today are not technical; they are, instead, bureaucratic and psychological (or, appropriately, political and economical). Energy independence starts with “politics, ecology, economics, population, government, war, money,” and ends with the least important, that is, the actual science and engineering involved in affecting change for the future of energy generation and transmission.

There are bottlenecks down the line in politics, in the way people think, and in cost, and until these bottlenecks are overcome, it is impossible for the already available technology to become widely-built and put into operation.

The importance of this issue is apparent everywhere. Without energy, modern society cannot survive. There would be no trains and cars; there would be no computers and telephones; there would be no refrigerators and microwaves. Today, about 25% of the United States’s energy consumption goes to cars alone, 7% to other means of transportation, 10% to homes and offices, 25% to industry, and the rest to energy production and transmission itself, all totally about 30 billion megawatt-hours annually.

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. So, what feeds this level of energy consumption? The largest source of energy used in the United States is petroleum oil—at around 40% (natural gas and coal are around 25% each). U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970 and has been significantly importing ever since at an exponential and alarming rate. Only in 1980 did U.S. energy consumption begin to appear to level out. But upon further analysis, this temporary dip is attributed to the outsourcing of manufacturing (then importing finished products to market). If we include imports from countries like China, the energy consumption curve of the United States would only continue to rise. In fact, energy consumption is growing much faster than domestic energy production in India and China. It is calculated that within 25 years, India and China will be using the same amount of energy as America is today.

It is a common understanding today that the U.S. energy policy needs to be reformed, for the sake of domestic energy security, if not for the sake of human sustainability on earth. Ruoff proposes the outline of potential solutions (aside from simply consuming less): [1] decrease population, [2] impose a $4 tax on gasoline, and [3] impose a big, exponential tax on heavy non-business vehicles. Specifically, build nuclear power plants domestically and completely eliminate the need of importing oil or gas. How do we pay for this program? It’s simple too. Ruoff proposes that we withdraw all our troops stationed in 761 military bases in 151 foreign countries, thereby saving about $250 billion annually, and all summarized in a simply 3-page proposal.

This seemly uncomplicated approach, however ideal, is impractical. The egregious American mindset is deeply embedded in the people, where bigger is better, faster is better, and more is better. Change comes, unfortunately, slow. Aggregate American disposition certainly does not change on its own. More needs to be done. Finally, we need to bear in mind that this is far from an insular, domestic problem. It is a global one that requires a global effort. As more and more people around the world adopt the American consumerist mentality, we are experiencing an exponentially growing need of energy.

Whichever way we approach this global energy crisis, though, this much is certain: the energy issue will either bring the world’s people together toward a unified effort, or result in its inevitable demise.