What business can i start in south india with Rs.1 lakh?
I’m a mechatronics engineering graduate who wishes to start my own business venture in india. I am willing to invest Rs.1,00,000-1,50,000. I wish to get a profit of Rs.50-70,000 per month within 2-3months after starting the business. Is it possible to start a renewable energy based company on these terms? I am ready to put in a lot of hard work. I hope to get some genuine suggestions from everyone here. Thanks in advance
Starting a business is big step is life and it is even bigger than marriage decision especially when you are new to this!
You may get many genuine advice. But tell me one thing, if everyone could do business just like you mentioned with 1 Lakh ( let us consider 10 Lakh) and get monthly profile of 50K then no one would be answering here. Everyone could be happy to work hard to get more profit 🙂
Be realistic about business. Do not play with numbers. Play with ideas.
Bottom line : Answer to your question – There are many small ventures working in energy sector. One of my friend work in solar energy sector in Bangalore. It took him almost 2 years to build network and get customers. Atleast for one year he was running business in loss.
Remember, its a venture, full of adventures. If you can handle it, think about it. Without profit business wont work and without planning nothing works. Meet experts, get into start-up group.
why are environmentalists voting no on CA prop 7?
i’ve read that groups like the sierra club and the environment defense fund oppose prop 7. i don’t understand — doesn’t it increase renewable energy? what’s wrong with this bill?
i support environmental causes but i want to know what the facts are before tuesday. any insight would be appreciated.
What it does is insist that ONLY huge companies can provide clean energy, which will put out of business all the little companies that have been developing and implementing clean energy all this time.
It also sets inflated energy rates, costing everyone MORE for cheaper energy.
I bet League of Women Voters has good stuff on this.
You could also go to NRDC and Sierra Club web sites; I bet they lay our their reasoning there.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
What is a voltage inverter and converter?
please can you tell me what they are…i am doing this for my design tech project sustainable energy A level
An Inverter is a device which inputs battery level DC (usually 12V, large scale systems may be 24 or 48 volts) and outputs domestic mains voltage/current. Cheap ones output a coarsely simulated AC, better ones provide a wave which more closely resembles sinusoidal AC.
A converter, generally, is a device which changes the input of the device to a different output.
In power, it usually means voltage, which may be a transformer for AC power, or a switch mode converter for DC.
Can a UK Government (Labour or Tory) really invest in creating green jobs and pulling us out of recession?
Or will the money get spent on expensive weapons systems instead?
The Atlantic weather front breaks on this country. If Europe has successful wind energy programs then why can’t we. 40% of the net wind energy throughout Europe is in the UK.
We’re also surrounded by the sea which means we have massive potential for wave energy devices and tidal turbines but, this technology is less developed than wind energy.
Then we are also not utilising our own rubbish enough. We are running out of landfill and are burying a great potential energy source. Incineration, although not everyone favourite can generate vast amounts of electricity.
Then there’s cows. We have a very sustainable farming industry (providing the government is there to support it). Using anaerobic digesters we can produce quite a bit of energy also.
There are many materials out there that can make our homes more efficient. Further research and the backing to get companies off the ground to produce these materials can make huge savings in energy usage.
There are many potential methods to really kick start a green economy it just needs a government to get behind the idea and crack on with it.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Why is important for business to use renewable energy?
Why is important for ‘business’ to use renewable energy? What are the advantages and disadvantages? Do you know a company that uses renewable energy and has reduced its carbon footprint? And one that doesn’t and is considerably contributing to global warming etc
It’s important because fossil fuels are a finite resource. Global oil production is beginning to decline as old oil fields reach their peak, (the Gwhar and Cantrell giant oil fields for example,) and their production curves begin the inevitable slide downwards. Although new oil fields are being discovered, they are not very large, and for every new barrel of oil found, eight are being used at the same time.
A report from the UK Energy Research Centre published in August said that there was a ‘significant risk’ that the peak of conventional oil production would happen before 2020, and that means we will soon be staring down the barrel of the ultimate oil crisis.
Some governments and corporations are waking up to this and beginning to develop alternatives to keep the worlds transport systems moving when cheap oil runs out, such as more energy efficient – or electric cars, bio fuels (which put the world’s food supply under pressure,) and hydrogen (which is too dangerous for public use at present,) but none of these is likely to make up the shortfall in time.
Many point to the tar sands and oil shales and the trillions of barrels of oil that are locked up in them, but even if investment in them poured in and everything went well:
‘oil sands might produce 6 million barrels of oil per day in 20 years’ time, but by then we’ll need to add at least 10 times that much capacity – without allowing for any growth in demand. It’s very hard to see non-conventional (oil sources) riding to the rescue.’ (Steven Sorrel, lead author of the UKERC report.)
There is also the problem that extracting non conventional oil supplies is very environmentally destructive, and if they were fully exploited, would hugely increase CO2 emissions, before they were even burned as fuel.
We must also remember that many of the rare earth metals that are needed to develop fuel efficient technologies are only found in China, and they have decided to limit or even ban the export of these metals, leaving all the other countries that wish to expand their use of such technologies at a disadvantage.
So the only businesses that can secure energy supplies are those that invest in renewable energies now, before the oil price rises, (due to demand outstripping supply,) and before the costs of making such renewables rises too as a result of resource depletion and the constrained supply of raw materials.
What would be the advantage to the USA of a thriving, high tech Renewable Energy Industry?
China’s investing in production and implementation of Renewable Energy, and is a big player in solar panel manufacture and installations, so is Japan, Germany, Spain. Why not the USA?
It is generally accepted that we can prevent earth’s deterioration if we achieve a renewable energy world. When we hear the word renewable energy we normally think of state-of-the art equipments and high-end technology. But, we can start today. Simple acts can help jumpstart the initiative of saving our planet.
Because renewable energy sources like solar and wind do not require the use of fossil fuels, they do not emit carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a bi-product of burning coal and gas. By reducing the amount of fossil fuels we burn, we are decreasing the amount of pollutants and chemicals being emitted into the atmosphere.
Pollution coming from power plants taints our air supply and causes asthma. Through the use of renewable energy, we could eliminate these harmful substances in the air, leading to a healthier population.
Once the solar panels are installed and the windmills are put up, renewable energy is essentially free. It costs nothing to use the suns rays, and taking advantage of a windy day is free. Furthermore, the supply of wind is not going to diminish. The sun’s rays are also prevalent and will exist for millions of years.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
What are the best three electrical energy suppliers?
[Location no object] Can anyone give me the details of three electrical energy suppliers that offer the best value for money?
And any additional details about the company…(Website etc…)
Solar energy is the radiant light and heat from the Sun that has been harnessed by humans since ancient times using a range of ever-evolving technologies. Solar radiation along with secondary solar resources such as wind and wave power, hydroelectricity and biomass account for most of the available renewable energy on Earth. Only a minuscule fraction of the available solar energy is used.
Solar power technologies provide electrical generation by means of heat engines or photovoltaics. Once converted its uses are only limited by human ingenuity. A partial list of solar applications includes space heating and cooling through solar architecture, potable water via distillation and disinfection, daylighting, hot water, thermal energy for cooking, and high temperature process heat for industrial purposes.
Solar technologies are broadly characterized as either passive solar or active solar depending on the way they capture, convert and distribute sunlight. Active solar techniques include the use of photovoltaic panels, solar thermal collectors, with electrical or mechanical equipment, to convert sunlight into useful outputs. Passive solar techniques include orienting a building to the Sun, selecting materials with favorable thermal mass or light dispersing properties, and designing spaces that naturally circulate air.
Wind power is the conversion of wind energy into a useful form, such as electricity, using wind turbines. At the end of 2008, worldwide nameplate capacity of wind-powered generators was 120.8 gigawatts. Although wind produces only about 1.5% of worldwide electricity use, it is growing rapidly, having doubled in the three years between 2005 and 2008. In several countries it has achieved relatively high levels of penetration, accounting for approximately 19% of electricity production in Denmark, 10% in Spain and Portugal, and 7% in Germany and the Republic of Ireland in 2008.
and Waves,(as in ocean waves)
Ocean waves are caused by the wind as it blows across the sea. Waves are a powerful source of energy.
The problem is that it’s not easy to harness this energy and convert it into electricity in large amounts. Thus, wave power stations are rare.
Today the largest use of hydropower is for the creation of hydroelectricity, which allows low cost energy to be used at long distances from the water source. Hydroelectricity is electricity generated by hydropower, i.e., the production of power through use of the gravitational force of falling or flowing water. It is the most widely used form of renewable energy. Once a hydroelectric complex is constructed, the project produces no direct waste, and has a considerably different output level of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) than fossil fuel powered energy plants. Worldwide, hydroelectricity supplied an estimated 715,000 MWe in 2005. This was approximately 19% of the world’s electricity (up from 16% in 2003), and accounted for over 63% of electricity from renewable sources.
Some jurisdictions do not consider large hydro projects to be a sustainable energy source, due to the human, economic and environmental impacts of dam construction and maintenance.
What is the relationship of resources and development?
Nepal is rich in natural resources like land, water, and biodiversity. Nepal should have developed through energy generation from rivers, tourism from aesthetic and panoramic view of mountains, hills, flat plains, green forests. Similarly, medicine and other products are possible from diverse flora and fauna. But it is not developed. Aren’t there any linkages on resources and development?
Yes, there is generally a positive relation between natural resource andowment and economic development. But this relationship holds strongly true in an environment of free movement of capital and labor and generally competitive free market system. In the absence of an autmatic and sustainable system that makes best use of the available resources, economic development cannot come about.
But Nepal, although being a small country, never had a free competitive market system. Rather, it remained feudalistc with the King and elected ministers copying Indian centrally planned system of State controls and direction and domination. Such systems talk loudly about best use of resources, high economic growth and equity but they are seldom efficient or effective in delivering the tall promises the politicians sell to the public: rather these kinds of systems are the best suited for the rapid growth of corruption and injustice together with huge misallocation of resources. On top of the low education makes productivity low. Political and economic oppression leads to frstrations and breeds insurgencyaided by foreign forces. These do not foster economic developmenrty. Education, competetive markets, desire to excel, allowing globally efficient companies to set up businesses without hindrances are all required for economic development. Nepal also has shown hatred and disrect to India, despite enjoying huge facilities from India. Such blindness has placed Nepal at a great disadvantage
It is ultimately the quality of the human resources in terms education, willingness to work harder, adopting congenial value system are the keys to taking best advantage of the natural resouirces.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Does Ireland utilize the vast amounts of peat bogs to generate electricity with by burning it?
Does this burning of the peat create additional environmental problems for the air quality in Ireland or directly affect the Global Warming, by sending large amounts of pollutions towards the Ozone Layers?
I am just trying to correctly understand some of the energy needs of the Irish people, from the people themselves, and not what the government or corporations will say.
Honest answers are appreciated, and Thank You!
Okay, here’s the real honest answer. Yes, Ireland does indeed have plans to use peat and lignite (which is almost indistinguishable from peat in many cases) as fuel for electric power plants. I know you didn’t ask for government reports, but to prove this I have to include them.
According to the European technical association of electricity and heat generation, known as the VGB Secretariat, this is true. They report that about 20-25% of the intended new power plant capacity in Ireland as of May, 2006, will be from peat and lignite powered electric generation plants. And, they also report that Ireland is already missing the Kyoto-targets for carbon dioxide by an excess of 22.7%. By 2008 Ireland’s target is to only exceed the Kyoto target by 13%, but obviously burning peat and lignite will not help with that.
Here is the Secretariat report:
An article in the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Journal reports the following: (I quote)
“Peat has been used in Ireland for the generation of electricity for over 30 years. A general picture is given of what is involved in developing bogland and producing milled peat in Ireland for power generation. Practice in burning milled peat in Irish power stations is briefly described. Cost data are presented and a cost derived for energy exported from a 45-MWe milled peat fired power station.”
A recent newspaper article in the Belfast Telegraph reports the following: (I quote)
“Between 1984-1986, an Australian company sank 16 bore holes to estimate the quality and extent of the lignite deposits around Ballymoney.
The deposits of lignite are known to extend to the shores of Lough Neagh which is the source of much of Belfast’s water supply.
In 2002, an application was made for planning permission for a mine and a power station on the same site. The land potentially affected extends nearly 8 kilometres from the Ballymoney bypass.
Lignite is a soft, brown fuel which has characteristics similar to both peat and coal. It is found in the United States, Canada, Greece and Germany where it is generally used as a fuel for generating electricity. In Greece, for example, 50% of electricity comes from lignite power plants.”
As for the difference between peat and lignite, it is sometimes indistinguishable to the eye. By definition, peat is “an unconsolidated deposit of semicarbonized plant remains …[with] persistently high moisture content (at least 75%)” and lignite is a slightly more consolidated deposit with a calorific value less than 8300 BTU/lb. Lignite is typically of Tertiary or Mesozoic age, while peat is most often younger. Both of these, when burned as fuel are among the least efficient types of fuel when considered by the ratio of the amount of energy to carbon dioxide output. So yes, while they will not technically affect the ozone layer, they will contribute a huge amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and could contribute to global warming.
Source of definitions:
Bates, R.L, and J.A. Jackson, editors, Dictionary of Geological Terms, prepared by the American Geological Institute. Third edition, 1984, page 295 and 372
The Belfast Telegraph goes on to explain that Northern Ireland’s electricity costs are among the highest in the EU, and that the company that has proposed a new lignite-fueled power plant says ” oil was very high in price and there was huge resistance by communities to renewable energy options, such as wind and tidal power.”
Ireland currently has 866 Kw of power generated from wind farms in 19 counties. Http://www.iwea.com/index.cfm/page/windfarmsinireland
Ireland’s total electricity used was about 24 billion Kw hours in 2005, so the wind power is much less than 1% of the total demand in Ireland. The capacity of the power plants that are planned to burn peat and lignite is about 600,000 Kw in comparison. That figure is estimated by me from the Secretariat’s report.
The total numbers for Ireland’s electric generation come from the Energy Information Administration here:
Is this Explanatory essay viable enough to be good?
By Luyang Liu
What is Geothermal energy and how does it power Australia?
Geothermal energy is a type thermal energy generated from the Earth. It’s also a form of clean and sustainable energy compared to various of other forms of energy; alternatively, it’s another form of renewable energy. Australia can thus greatly benefit from geothermal energy, due to fact that it has numerous advantages.
Geothermal energy is generated from radioactive decay of minerals within the core of the Earth, and from solar energy absorbed by the Earth. It is evident that resources of geothermal energy comes from miles underground or perhaps even deeper, amongst extreme high temperatures of molten rocks and magma. At the core of the Earth, temperatures may reach over 5000 degrees celsius (9,000 degrees Fahrenheit). Heat are withdrawn and will be generated as electricity.
Geothermal energy is low on cost, reliable and environmentally friendly, and thus geothermal energy is sustainable to our environment. It is considered sustainable because heat extract is spontaneously small compared to Earth’s contents, therefore it doesn’t not affect Earth itself.
Advantages of Geothermal Energy:
There are a wide range of advantages of harnessing geothermal energy. The main advantage of harness geothermal energy is the concept of generating less pollution. Geothermal energy have the potential to reduce reliance on fossil fuel. With skyrocketing prices of petrol, various countries are pushing companies to adopt these clean sources of energy. Geothermal energy can also be used directly and instantaneously, it is evident that people have been using this source of energy for taking bath, heating homes, preparing food and nowadays it is also used for direct heating of homes and offices. There is evidence suggest that geothermal energy also gives a significant cost saving on the economy; geothermal energy generally involves lowering running costs since it saves an amazing amount of 80% costs over fossil fuels. Furthermore, no fuel will be required to generate the power to run the Geothermal energy facilities.
How does geothermal electric plants generate electricity?
Gas that are emitted by geothermal energy is used to turn the blades of a turbine, which then is used to power a generator and produce electricity. It is evident that this process heat energy is converted into mechanical energy, and mechanical energy into electricity.
How can geothermal energy power Australia?
Geothermal energy is rarely used in Australia, nevertheless it’s gradually increasing. There are known potential locations near the center of Australia that have been indicated to contain hot granites at depth which hold optimistic potential for development of geothermal energy. Exploratory geothermal wells have been drilled for experiments for presence of high temperature geothermal reservoir rocks and such hot granites were detected. Above all, geothermal energy productions will eventuate in the upcoming years and explorations are expected to find new locations.
Above all, geothermal energy have the potential is light up Australia with it’s environmentally friendly advantages. We should definitely consider geothermal energy and utilise such renewable energy efficiently.
Geothermal energy = viable and feasible By Luyang Liu
What is geothermal energy?
Geothermal power in Australia?
Advantages of geothermal energy
I am in Yr 9.
Yes, the essay viable enough to be good as per my opinion if we look into the present condition of earth and its fossil fuel is going to be end soon. So finding the renewable energy is the only option we are left with. The geothermal energy is good to use because it is not using any fossil fuel and it uses the heat present in the core of earth.
Geothermal energy is not only the renewable energy we have!
We can also give promotion of other renewable energy like the Solar energy, wind energy, Biomass.
Solar energy is a very good and easy to use renewable energy, due to this its appliances are available in every corner of the world.
We can also try to conserve the natural resource by limiting our energy uses. If we concentrate on use of renewable energy the we can save our environment buy reducing the carbon emission.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
How much hydrogen (gas and/or liquid) could an oil tanker covered in solar panels produce in a day?
if you take one of those big enormous oil tankers that they have today, and convert it and cover it with solar panels and park it on the equator, how much gas hydrogen could it produce in one reguarl sunny day? and how much liquid hydrogen could it produce?
thanks for the info Ecko, i was really thinking of the feasibility of a hydrogen powered commercial airplane that could travel from LA to Miami. not really cost effective, but green energy is not about making a profit, just being sustainable and beneficial
Not much tbh. The cost in steel and materials to build them would far far far outweigh the benefit the panels would bring in the form of electricity.
An related more interesting concept being bought up these days is solar roads .. Let me find a link.
I’m not the guy that replies here to get points so I am not worried about saying what i think as opposed to what others want to hear . That being said , the main issue is , how much energy is needed to :
Mine enough iron ore and coal , drive the stuff to the mill . The percentage of the steel mill () lets say it takes X days of mill time to make the steel , the amount of energy it took to make the mill divided by it’s lifetime multiplied by X days needs to be added), work hours and energy needs for the people that make that steel for the duration of the construction of the boat , the energy needs for sustaining the families that will construct the boat , the energy needed to keep the maintenance of such a boat to a level where it can keep working . In essence the detailed total energy cost to conjure such a boat into existence .. What is that converted in KW.
QUOTE ” not really cost effective, but green energy is not about making a profit, just being sustainable and beneficial”
Taking a zero profit margin , if that boat would have to keep running beyond it’s construction lifespan , it would by definition be a hindrance on the environment .
My impression in the reply i gave is that it can never produce in energy during it’s lifetime what it’s going to cost in energy to make.
As I said it was my impression , however , after reading this post a few times , I am now curious what the total amount of energy would be to create such a ship and keep it in operation.
Second unrelated thing. I have always wondered if geothermal energy could be exploited at feasible levels to power the globe with .. Could Iceland , or any part of the world be converted into a generator park that could be used to make in essence , energy without fuel.
I started a question myself about the total energy thing .
5 ways in which sustainable development can be achieved in modern society?
Sustainable development does not focus solely on environmental issues. More broadly, sustainable development policies encompass three general policy areas: economic, environmental and social. In support of this, several United Nations texts, most recently the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document, refer to the “interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” of sustainable development as economic development, social development, and environmental protection.
Scheme of sustainable development: at the confluence of three preoccupations.
The Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2001) elaborates further the concept by stating that “…cultural diversity is as necessary for humankind as biodiversity is for nature”; it becomes “one of the roots of development understood not simply in terms of economic growth, but also as a means to achieve a more satisfactory intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence”. In this vision, cultural diversity is the fourth policy area of sustainable development.
Green development is generally differentiated from Sustainable development in that Green development prioritizes what its proponents consider to be environmental sustainability over economic and cultural considerations. Proponents of Sustainable Development argue that it provides a context in which to improve overall sustainability where cutting edge Green development is unattainable. For example, a cutting edge treatment plant with extremely high maintenance costs may not be sustainable in regions of the world with less financial resources. An environmentally ideal plant that is shut down due to bankruptcy is obviously less sustainable than one that is maintainable by the indigenous community, even if it is somewhat less effective from an environmental standpoint.
Some research activities start from this definition to argue that the environment is a combination of nature and culture. The Network of Excellence “Sustainable Development in a Diverse World” SUS.DIV, sponsored by the European Union, works in this direction. It integrates multidisciplinary capacities and interprets cultural diversity as a key element of a new strategy for sustainable development.
The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development lists the following areas as coming within the scope of Sustainable Development:
* Climate Change
* Consumption and Production Patterns
* Desertification and Drought
* Disaster Reduction and Management
* Education and Awareness
* Fresh Water
* Human Settlements
* Information for Decision Making and Participation
* Integrated Decision Making
* International Law
* International Cooperation for Enabling Environment
* Institutional Arrangements
* Land management
* Major Groups
* National Sustainable Development Strategies
* Oceans and Seas
* Small Islands
* Sustainable tourism
* Toxic Chemicals
* Trade and Environment
* Waste (Hazardous)
* Waste (Radioactive)
* Waste (Solid)
Sustainable Development is an ambiguous concept, as a wide array of views fall under its umbrella. The concept has included notions of weak sustainability, strong sustainability and deep ecology. Different conceptions also reveal a strong tension between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism. Thus, the concept remains weakly defined and contains a large amount of debate as to its precise definition.
During the last ten years, different organizations have tried to measure and monitor the proximity to what they consider sustainability by implementing what has been called sustainability metric and indices.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Which renewable energy is the best source?
Which renewable energy is the best source?
I have to write a report comparing and contrasting 3 types of renewable energy sources. One of my chosen ones is already geothermal, can you give me two more renewable energy sources that are considered the best ones? Because I have to choose which one is the best and explain why it is.
By the way if you can, make sure it’s a good source for CANADA.
Did you know the sun produces the amount of energy the whole WORLD needs in 1 hour?
How much of the World’s energy consumption is renewable?
I know that the World‘s Energy Consumption is 483.6 Q, and the United States energy consumption is 101.55. The United States renewable energy consumption is 6.81 Q.
I can’t find any information the world‘s renewable energy consumption. Does anybody know what it is?
A SOURCE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR VERIFICATION AND BEST ANSWER!
Well since “in 2010 86,4 % of global energy use came from burning fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) and you know that the World’s Energy Consumption is 483.6 Q then you can easily calculate the share of renewables.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
If progressives are so anti corporatist then why do they support the Federal Reserve?
A bunch of PRIVATELY OWNED banks controlling the entire monetary supply of the United States?
Perhaps I am an alarmist but isn’t that the definition of fascism?
Bill Hicks-Thanks. I know many liberals are against the Reserve. In my opinion there is a huge difference between actual liberals and the progressives/leftists.
The word “PROGRESS” is apparently ignored when right-wing regressives try to bad-mouth the progressives within the Democratic party. The new-wave Progressives are all about seeing this nation progress towards fiscal sanity and a fully restored manufacturing jobs base in the field of renewable energy resources (see recovery.gov for more details).
‘Twas Republican right-wingers who decided to DEREGULATE (which means remove all oversight, all systems of checks and balances, all consumer protections), so when the Obama administration sought to set up government oversight policies to prevent abuses by financial institutions, Wall Street, or credit agencies in order to prevent any more abuses or needs for future bailouts, why did the Republicans all vote “nay” after first trying to filibuster the consumer-protecting legislations?
The word “controlling” is not technically correct, by the way. The 419 privately-owned banks that needed Bush/Cheney’s WELFARE BAILOUTS in 2007 and 2008 had been so thoroughly DEREGULATED that even with these taxpayer funds meant to be used to help home-owners refinance the bankster CEOs instead gave themselves multi-million-dollar salaries and multi-million-dollar bonuses for bankrupting their firms—BOTTOMLESS-PIT GREED and CORRUPTION for which some of them should be in prison! Check out the Dodd-Frank financial reforms that have been signed into law—a decent beginning but more reforms (and more oversight) is needed. Progressives want oversight of these corporations run amok, that’s all—and this does not make Democrats or any faction of the Democratic party “anti corporatist”! To the contrary, we Democrats favor having no more OUTSOURCING by greed-driven corporate leaders and want those jobs brought home again. We also want trillionaire and billionaire corporations to start contributing their FAIR SHARE in tax revenues (the 39% that was in place during Bill Clinton’s eight years of PROSPERITY) so that they are contributing to this nation’s recovery. That is PRO-CORPORATION in the long run. The Federal Reserve is not the villain Libertarians try to claim…but oversight and regulation is necessary to make sure this remains true.
Can someone give me at least two examples of renewable, nonrenewable, and inexhaustible resources?
I know that I should already know the answer to this question, but I’m just trying to make sure that my definitions for each of these are correct.
Coal and Oil are nonrenewable resources. Once these are gone there will be no more available. We can’t make more oil or coal on a massive scale faster than we use them in our life times. (both formed over millions of years.)
Renewable energy being energy that can be replenished. Plants (a lot of clothing is made of cotton) for example, are renewable. We can grow more plants. Technically speaking water is a renewable resource. The problem is only 3% of water is fresh, and of that 3% only 1% is available for use. It absolutely needs to be reserved. Poisoning it would be bad for obvious reasons and we do that all the time. On the other hand, we can also treat water and reuse it, and eventually water will clean itself through the water cycle (but at the rate which we ruin it, that’s not an argument for wasting or poisoning it.)
Sunlight and Wind are some examples of Inexhaustible resources. We can use solar energy and wind energy for ever and ever and these things will not run out. (Well, if you want to get technical, we’ll have solar energy until the sun dies. You know, billions of years from now. Yeah. Doesn’t really count ^-^) These are also considered renewable resources.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
A multitude of Global Climate Change solutions have been proposed. Which do you support?
This is going to be a long, laborious process. In answering this question, feel free to go beyond token mitigation measures that attempt to staunch the bleeding, as it were, and share some of the bolder approaches that will change the business-as-usual way of life that got us into this mess. Share some of the innovative, sustainable proposals that will promote new, greener technologies. A technological revolution to mop up problems associated with the industrial revolution, perhaps?
I support energy conservation first over efforts to substitute other forms of energy, such as atomic or ethanol. I believe geometric reductions are possible in our use of energy without serious loss of quality of life. Ford bringing out a 2008 Thunderbird, with 300 horsepower days before the President begs Saudi Kings for cheaper oil is criminal, in my opinion. The US car fleet of SUVs and gas hogs makes us pigs in the world’s eyes.
Second, I support population control and population reduction before aggressively funding unproven technological changes to further reduce our use of polluting energy sources.
Third, I support public examination of our core values, to find ways to support all of these changes needed to protect our earth. Without an understanding of this, it’s not likely we will be able change our ways without a Police State, which is far less desirable than the enthusiastic and proactive support of the people.
After these measures are embraced, I support evolutionary changes that might involve new technologies. But what I find now is that radical technological changes are frequently proposed today, by sophisticated scientists, without the slightest thought about what their collateral effects on the earth might be. It’s like hopping from frying pan to fire. Ethanol is but one example of this, which has the potential to seriously harm the environment (and the world’s food chain). Another is to seed the oceans with iron to produce an abundance of algae that would reduce CO2. What are they thinking? Or not thinking (about ocean fisheries).
How come global warming was not a problem during the clinton administration?
but when a republican is elected it is a big deal. I thought this problem was starting before clinton according to some people.
I mean why was there not hype about it. now days you hear global warming this global warming that.
I know you may say the AL Bore sorry i mean gore did stuff before but it was not all hyped up. I guess the demacrats will do what they do best blame bush.
Because Clinton was in bed with big corporations like Enron…
“Enron, however, has been at the forefront of the global-warming debate, and was an early and strong supporter of Kyoto and Kyoto’s proponents:
In January 1997, the company announced formation of the Enron Renewable Energy Corporation to offer alternatives to the “$250 billion U.S. Electricity market.” Renewable Energy CEO Tom White supported President Clinton’s $6.3 million plan to fight global warming.
Later that year, Enron CEO Kenneth Lay was named a member of President Clinton’s “Council on Sustainable Development,” joining Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, and Fred Krupp, executive director of the Environmental Defense Fund. The task force also included representatives from the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council.
The National Environmental Trust, a public-relations organization heavily funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts to promote environmental policies, worked with Kenneth Lay to place pro-Kyoto editorials (under Lay’s signature) in the Houston Chronicle, the Austin-American Statesman, and the Salt Lake City Tribune.
When President Clinton called for a gradual reduction in greenhouse gases, to lay the groundwork for U.S. Backing of Kyoto, Enron executives expressed their support. In an Atlanta Constitution article, Enron Senior Vice President Terry Thorn called the announcement “a measured, appropriate action plan given what we know today about global warming. This will unleash the ingenuity of American business to find creative solutions.”
I guess it’s too bad that Enron was roped in by the Bush Justice Department. Just think of what a great supporter those wonderful people at Enron were – the environment has lost a true friend… :sniff:
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Should Australia become a more liberal, progressive and modern country?
its not really liberal, modern and progressive if you think about it, no gay marriage, no seperation betwen church and state, no broadband network yet, no renewable energy, the list goes on, there are far more progressive countries out there. The Greens will take us there, the others won’t.
A few years ago I heard a blind man from Central Queensland on the radio telling his story of how he and his guide dog were received in Greece. After considerable difficulties thrown in his way, such as the refusal of drivers to allow the dog in a bus or taxi, incidentally all of them against Greek law, he complained to the Australian consulate. Other insults included comments passed in the street when his wife went out alone (she understood modern Greek).
That was when his troubles really began. The consulate relayed his complaint to the appropriate section of the Greek government and the local police were notified. They began to harass him and his sighted wife. What the police and the rest did not know was that both of the Australian couple understood modern Greek very well, so they knew what was being said about them.
His conclusions after they hounded him back to Australia included (a) that Greeks were terrified of dogs (b) that in Greek opinion blind people should not be allowed on the streets (c) the Greeks in his locality were at least two generations behind the (rest of the) civilised world in their attitudes to the disabled and their attitudes to women were medieval.
The story is far to long to relate here fully so I’ll leave it at that. What it illustrates is that there are ostensibly civilised countries on this planet where attitudes to the disabled and women we take for granted in Australia just do not exist.
For all the whining from various groups in this country, they don’t know they are alive. Yes, some things could be better.
Do you know why there is little or no renewable energy? It is quite simple. Renewable energy is utterly incapable of supplying the demand and on top of that it is unreliable.
How many 1 kilowatt wind generators does it take to supply the same amount of power as a 1400 MEGAwatt power station? I’ll do the calculation for you, since greens are unwilling or incapable of simple arithmetic or too damn dishonest to admit it. A mere 14,000. How many 1400 megawatt power stations are there? Dozens. Get real.
why are environmentalists voting no on CA prop 7?
i’ve read that groups like the sierra club and the environment defense fund oppose prop 7. i don’t understand — doesn’t it increase renewable energy? what’s wrong with this bill?
i support environmental causes but i want to know what the facts are before tuesday. i tried posting this in the environmental section of Y!A and didn’t get any good responses… any insight would be appreciated.
Outfits like the Sierra Club and EDF depend on cash donations, and tend to assume the positions of their donors. There is no reason for REAL environmentalists to vote no on 7.
In fact whenever I see the preponderance of ads on one side of an issue, I am suspicious.
Here in California our state legislature is paralyzed by conflicting special interests. But anyone can get just about any law passed if they have enough money. You pay someone to gather signatures to put it on the ballot, then buy lots of advertising time with a twisted negative message.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
How renewable energy solar power works?
My father is asking me to post a question about this.He is planning to buy an alternative renewable energy resources.Is it true that you will save electricity from alternative home energy solutions? Any suggestions and help on this post is highly appreciated thanks.
You can use renewable energy sources since it can be replenished in a short period of time. A the same time you can help the environment. And the best is it will never run out of sources of renewable energy as long as humans will exist. I found this website it says http://fastfreehomeenergy.com/alternative-energy-home.html “Many people (including myself) have reportedly slashed their monthly electricity bill by up to 80% through the methods mentioned above. If we can do it, so can you.”. Just check this out for more details.
I hope i was bale to contribute a bit on your question.
Is it better to be a computer engineer or engineer in renewable energy?
I hesitate a lot between these two formations attractive computer networks or renewable energy. Renewable energy for its ecology and environmental protection, and the other allows to create his business to cope with the websites, high tech and everything.
Which do you prefer? Which has more opportunities and is best to live?
Renewable energy is an ureliable endeavor. Comp engineers are always in need.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
What companies do solar energy research?
I’m looking into companies that are researching solar/renewable energies, particularly in California. What companies are doing a lot of R&D in this area?
I’m looking for a career. I’m about a year away from my BS in Electrical Engineering and I’m interested in a job in renewables R&D after graduation.
These are Silicon Valley solar companies that are doing R&D. I don’t know if you are looking for a company to apply at or looking to invest. Best of luck in any case.
You can find a link to each companies website from the article they were listed in:
Aren’t these green energy companies unable to make a profit a sign from God telling us not to abandon oil?
The dinosaurs died 5000 years ago and God converted them to oil to sustain our civilization. When you use renewable energy you are giving a big huge middle finger to the dinosaurs and to God as well. And you are probably gay too. Don’t let their sacrifice be in vain. Oil today, oil tomorrow, oil forever. FACT.
Troll is troll.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
How do you feel about using sola-powered appliances or other installations at home?
Hello, I’m a student conducting a short open-ended survey to get a feel of how solar-powered installations at home will be perceived and received by the average person. Your responses will help me develop a sustainable product for residential use. Feel free to respond and send me your comments. Thank you very much for helping! – MariaCGL
I have lived off-grid for about four years relying completely on solar electric power. I learned a lot about conservation as my system is very modest, but I wouldn’t exchange it for a monthly electric bill-I own my power not rent it from an electric company that can hike rates and pollute the air as much as they please.
I feel that utilizing solar energy has helped me look at my energy use in a new way. I have developed a new pattern language in my home and during my daily activities that have made me much less wasteful. Solar energy is expensive and so being efficient always trumphs adding solar modules to the home.
It feels great to use renewable energy from the sun!
What is an environmentally sustainable society?
What is an environmentally sustainable society? Distinguish between living on the earth’s natural capital and living on the renewable biological income provided by this capital. How is this related to the sustainability of (a) the earth’s life-support system and (b) your lifestyle?
It’s one where all the people are dead.
People have no right to live. It’s bad for “the environment”.
The government has a right to total power. If it’s necessary to pass laws that stop agriculture or the production of energy, that’s fine – anything for the environment.
You have no right to a lifestyle because it uses natural resources.
Don’t laugh. This are exactly the belief underlying the environmental movement, and which big governments throughout the western world are actively implementing.
The point is, the distinction the question asks about, cannot be made except by a society based on the private ownership of the means of production. Capital is a market concept. There’s no use talking about government management of capital, because government has no way to calculate capital without using market methods. Government has no way to not consume capital – in fact, that’s all that government does. There is simply no evidence or scientific reason for the modern superstitious belief that government can further environmental sustainability. The belief that it can is merely confused, like the person who wrote the questions you are asking.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
How to become a green energy engineer?
I want a job that means something. Not just getting through it to get a paycheck. So this is why I chose to work with renewable energy. I’m just not sure what steps to take to get where I want to go. I can’t find any college around here (Columbus, Ohio) that can give me the courses needed. Maybe I’m not using the correct terminology to search for the classes. But I need any intelligent person to help me please!
Register here https://www.coursera.org/ and here https://www.edx.org/ and try find course about green engineering.
What specific training or degrees are emplyers looking for when it come to LEED/ Alternative/Renewable Energy?
I am looking for specific details of how to pursue and crosstrain into Alternative/Renewable energy fields of solar, wind, geothermal, and hydorenergy.
I have been in Stationary Engineering for 16 years so, I am looking to be able to install, repair, and be hands on. I also want to be able to design and then install.
What kind of job would you like to do? There are a lot of different people working in alternative energy. It’s like saying you want to work with food–do you mean a farmer? A chef? A grocery store manager?
With alternative energy, you could be an investor who funds the technology, an engineer who designs new technologies, an advertising agent who markets the technologies, a lawyer who works for those companies, the guy working under the sun who physically installs them, etc. Etc. Etc.
What is your background now, and in what capacity do you want to work in alternative energy?
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Suddenly Switching from gasoline based automobiles to electric powered. How would it affect our economy>?
I was chosen to pick a topic for debate for an English class, and I decided on whether or not switching to electricity based automobiles would be a smart thing to do if we had the option. I have to include such factors as economy, jobs that could be lost with the loss of oil companies, impact on the environment, etc. Any online sources would be greatly appreciated.
Also definitely gonna give a best answer to someone who answers, so please help!
The electric car was among the earliest automobiles — small electric vehicles predate the Otto cycle upon which Diesel (diesel engine) and Benz (gasoline engine) based the automobile. Between 1832 and 1839 (the exact year is uncertain), Scottish businessman Robert Anderson invented the first crude electric carriage. Professor Sibrandus Stratingh of Groningen, the Netherlands, designed the small-scale electric car, built by his assistant Christopher Becker in 1835.
Practical and more successful electric road vehicles were invented by both American Thomas Davenport and Scotsmen Robert Davidson around 1842. Both inventors were the first to use non-rechargeable electric cells.
What advantages do EVs offer? EVs produce zero emissions at the point of use. An electric motor is 400% to 600% more efficient than an internal combus tion engine. An EV, per mile, uses one-half the fossil-fuel resources an ICE consumes. An EV produces only 5% to 10% of the emissions of an ICE per mile traveled. All of the EV’s emissions occur at a (oil- or coal-fueled) power plant, which runs 400% to 500% more efficiently than an ICE and scrubs its own exhaust. EVs can use electricity from anywhere including sustainable energy resources (wind and sun). EVs are simple, silent, and affordable to operate.
Zero-Emission or Emission-Elsewhere? It is a major step for an automobile to no longer emit exhaust gases. In fact, it is nearly inconceivable. That’s why consumers will love zero-emission vehicles. They may not be driving a solar-powered car, but they will be helping the sun to once more shine through clear skies.
In the literal sense, of course, the EV is the “emission-elsewhere” car. The electricity to power the car has to be generated somewhere. And, though some energy is available from sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, and water power, the bulk comes from coal- and oil-fueled power plants. Isn’t this just transplanting the problem somewhere else?
The answer is both yes and no. Yes, the pollution is transferred to another region. However, this matter has been scrutinized extensively by the U.S. Depart ment of Energy and several California agencies charged with air-quality manage ment. The bulleted list above reflects their findings.
EVs are very efficient. They have to be. A pound of battery has 1/100 of the energy of a pound of gasoline. On average, a 30 mpg ICE car uses only 5% to 10% of the energy of its fuel, whereas the EV converts 70% to 80% of the battery’s pack into propulsion, for the same mile.
Electric car operating costs can be directly compared to the equivalent operating costs of a gasoline-powered vehicle. A litre of gasoline contains about 8.9 kW·h of energy. To calculate the cost of the electrical equivalent of a liter of gasoline, multiply the utility cost per kW·h by 8.9. Because automotive internal combustion engines are only about 20% efficient, then at most 20% of the total energy in that liter of gasoline is ever put to use.
Also Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car
What is the most sustainable way to purchase soft drinks?
My family really enjoys soda pop, vitamin water, etc., but I see all of these plastic bottles and aluminum cans, and even though I take them to recycling, I know that a lot of energy and water are expended in making and recycling those containers. Any advice on how we can still enjoy soft drinks in a more sustainable way?
You can purchase from local company by supporting them
you can purchase value pack which mean instead of 24 pack, you can buy a 2L bottle instead in order to reduce waste.
Make sure you recycle all empty bottles and cans
make sure you purchase those ones that can be recycled.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
how much of the earth do we need to cover with solar cells to meet current energy demands?
If the world’s current power demand is 14TWH and the Sun produces 120000TW/Y or around 14TW/h. how much area of the earth would we need to cover in solar panels to reach current energy demands?
Hey Brian, interesting question, and one that gets to the heart of many renewable energy myths today. Your explanation might have a couple apples vs oranges. The sun produces much more power than 120,000 terawatts, or terawatts per year, but I’m not sure if TW/Y represents either of those. Total electrical energy use on our globe is about 15 terawatts continuously, or 132,000 TW hours each year. Since solar panels are about 12 to 14 % efficient today, it would take an area of 192 square miles to produce that much power. Problem is, you would need it to work 24/7, and most places on our globe are dark at night. Accomodating for night time, and twilight hours in the morning and evening when the panels would be operating below peak power, the number jumps to about 890 square miles, or about 39,000,000 acres. That sounds huge, but consider that Rhode Island takes up over 1500 square miles, and is one of the smallest states in the US, really that scenario is feasible. The fact is we are never going to do that. The cost, the enourmous demand for silicone, wiring, grids, and so on make it totally impractical. There is also the fact that Rhode Island is pretty cloudy.
Now enter the Germans, they have a fantastic plan to mine solar power from the Sahara Desert. It doesn’t involve solar panels, instead they are going to use solar thermal collectors that will heat oil to several hundred degrees, which will be circulated back into huge insulated tanks, then the hot oil will be used to boil water into steam ,which will turn a steam turbine. This idea has several advantages. First, since we can use both the light of the sun, and its resultant heat as opposed to a silicone panel, which uses only the incoming photons, the efficiency jumps to about 60%. Second, since oil does not boil until around 550 degrees, we can use the stored hot oil well into the night until it cools substantially. Now we have access to solar power at night. And the concentrators and oil(which gets continuously recycled each day) cost much less per unit power than any panel in production today. Since the efficiency is much higher, they will only need 30 to 40 square miles to power all of Europe. If you want to check it out, google, “North African Solar Project,” and read some of the resulting websites. If the system works as well as they plan, it will run most of Western Europe, and then we will probably have one in our desert southwest a few years later. This concentrator will not offset any wildlife, beyond a few scorpions and rattlesnakes living in the far out areas of the desert, and since they will be using sea water to boil into steam, the byproduct of the electrical production will be fresh water. That fresh water will be used for irrigation to farm small quantities of sunlight intensive farm stock in what is now a completely dry desert. Adding small amounts of plant life to the northwest corner of the desert where none exists now will not alter the climate, but does offer another opportunity for carbon to be converted to oxygen, reducing the CO2 content of the atmosphere slightly. There will be jobs there, installation, technicians, maintenance and operations, and as long as the sun shines in the desert, we won’t run out of fuel.
We’ve been powering our home for 11 years now on wind and solar power. I’ve learned many things during that time. One item is that there are two things in large supply in solar power, the sun, and missinformation. Lots of people have been posting interesting “facts” here about solar and wind power, having never laid a hand on a panel or wind turbine. Wind turbines do not kill as many birds each year as living room windows do, powering homes with solar panels does not require massive amounts of space, silicone panels do not need massive amounts of toxic chemicals to manufacture them, and people do not get cancer from spinning wind turbines. These are just a few of my favorites, there are many more. If you want to learn more about this technology, check out some sources below. Take care Brian, Rudydoo
Why do people wrongly believe that corn ethanol has a negative energy yield?
When every new study indicates otherwise. And ethanol plants are using renewable sources for power to save money.
Impressive statistics, Matthew. Didn’t realize wind power can be converted to ethanol.
Several new studies, including a gigantic one released this year from the US Department of Energy, show the corn to ethanol process to have a significantly larger positive net energy yield than previously shown. These improvements were largely due to greater efficiency modifications and technological advancements at ethanol plants. In some cases, specific ethanol plants have an almost infinitely positive net energy yield due to groundbreaking technologies used to power the plant such as wind turbine technology.
This study published in january 2009 shows the net energy yield of corn to ethanol to be +50% to 80%:
Here are the latest numbers from the Dept. Of Energy, published in May 2009. Go to page 16 of the 20 page summary. In the conclusions section the US DOE concludes that the entire corn to ethanol process yields at least 34% more energy that it takes to make the numbers could be as high as 67% due to rising corn yields secondary to farming improvements and ethanol plant technology improvements. The DOE concludes that corn ethanol is “energy efficient and becoming more energy efficient as time goes on”. They study also concludes that only 17% of the energy used to make ethanol actually comes from fossil fuels:
Lastly, some ethanol plants are producing ethanol and using virtually zero fossil fuels at all. Many are converting to wind power to generate the electricity for their plants. This makes sense for several reasons. First, wind and corn go hand in hand. The areas in the midwest that grow corn tend to be very windy in general. Secondly, the plants see this as a way to save huge amounts of money on energy costs. Thirdly, using wind turbines makes the net energy yield of producing ethanol even more hugely positive. Cornplus ethanol in Winnebago, Minnesota is one such plant that is producing ethanol from almost entirely renewable sources. Here are 2 links to read about it:
And here is one more study that shows corn ethanol yields 67% more energy than it takes to produce:
Now, I want to hear arguments from people that dispute these facts. All 3 studies mentioned above have been published in 2009. Can you provide a newer more current study that shows differently? If you want to argue that the yield is negative please back it up with FACTS and DATA and provide LINKS, as I have done. Otherwise your argument has no weight. If you are going to argue against the net energy yield of ethanol back up your argument with facts, not just your false beliefs. Then again, I guess ignorance is bliss.
Chui, please see my link which addresses the issue you mentioned. We have thousands and thousands of miles of unused land in the US to plant corn and other crops.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
are you serious about saving the environment?
are you serious about saving the environment? or just looking for an excellent and open career opportunity with nowhere to go but up, start working now to get your renewable energy training certificate.
And where does one get the certificate? =D
What course or certificate do I need to install solar panels on houses?
I am looking at installing solar panels and other associated energy efficient products in the community in Perth. I am trying to find out what the course is that I need to be able to set up grid connect solar panels. I am aware that an electrician will have to do the connection to the grid, but have herd that there is a 3 month course in Brisbane. Just wondering if there is the same thing in Perth.
I’m not really sure about a course that you need to install solar panels on houses. I’m doing certificate II in electrotechnology and I know that there is also a certificate IV in electrotechnology where you learn about renewable energy so i searched Google for a TAFE in Perth that offers this sort of course and found this: http://psc.central.tafe.wa.edu.au/Search/List.aspx?Keyword=renewable%20energy&CourseNumber=&CourseType=&DeliveryLocation=&InternationalProduct=&Status=&StudyMode=&AccreditationWeeks=&MOUP=&MOUC=&ASCO=&ANZSIC=&ReviewDate=&searchBy=adv¤tlyThisSemester=&availableNextSemester=&courseNationalNumber=
I hope this helps! (I’m actually thinking of installing solar panels when I’m older too)
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
What are three good things about nuclear power?
I’m doing an assignment and have to point out 3 good things about nuclear and why it is better than coal. Help?
First point, we are talking about nuclear power as it exists at present, fission reactors that use uranium as a fuel.
It is difficult to make very strong points in favour of nuclear power, though it has been fashionable to try in some countries lately. It is basically non-renewable and so the uranium fuel is a limited and valuable resource that may be best kept for other purposes. This is the main point against it, just not sustainable.
The most common plus point put up in recent years is that it is clean power with low or zero emissions. You can use this in your argument, as have many politicians, but be aware that it is semantic nonsense. I think Japan went from a very “dirty” country to a clean country by introducing nuclear power plants. “Emissions” is an avoidance word though. Nuclear power has pollution as do other systems, though in different ways. Its downside is that the by-products need continuous care for hundreds of years. The up-side is that if properly contained (if) then the volume is small. There has been a lot of hysteria about dangers and contamination, but these are not easy to justify. The effects of other systems are probably just as life threatening, each in their own ways. There is a lot of drum beating going on around the various energy debates, presumably because a lot of money is involved, and also because it catches public interest.
Cost. Nuclear power is promoted as an intermediate cost between fossil fuel power and alternate energy power. Before alternate energy systems, it was the alternate energy system itself, and the most expensive. Once again this is a point for your answer, but it is not all that clear cut for whole of life cycle. Costing must take into account the long term safekeeping of hazardous material, and cleanups after shutdown or rare accidents. This is borne by the public, or so do utilities hope to avoid it. They can declare themselves bankrupt if things look bad, but the problem is then left for the public to pay. Basically nuclear power is subsidised in most places it is used, but then so are other power industries in various ways.
Security of supply. This is the third point. Nuclear power provides significant percentages of power in some countries. It provides an existing system that continues to operate, presumably as long as nuclear fuel is available (about 80 years). It seems to make sense to keep it in operation rather than dismantle it too soon. Dismantling it may well divert funds from alternative systems, and increase the use of fossil fuels.
Another plus point is that it is seen as less disruptive to human life as the natural radiation is higher than having a lot of properly run nuclear plants would be. This is compared to the large quantity of toxic substances output from coal stations.
Another point (a reason, not a good thing) is that it is seen as a status symbol in some countries, a sort of coming of age or “we can do nuclear”. This makes it desireable.
The link below is from the International Atomic Energy Association, and lists the pros and various arguments..
What are the presidential candidates stand on environmental issues?
That concerns me because it truly should concern the whole planet. So with each major candidate, what are there policies? On things like global warming, reforestation, preservation of natural habitats, preservation of species, biodiversity etc.
Barack Obama’s Plan
Reduce Carbon Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Cap and Trade: Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama’s cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition.
Confront Deforestation and Promote Carbon Sequestration: Obama will develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Invest in a Clean Energy Future
Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be devoted to ensuring that technologies that are developed in the U.S. Are rapidly commercialized in the U.S. And deployed around the globe.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding: Obama will double science and research funding for clean energy projects including those that make use of our biomass, solar and wind resources.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce: Obama will use proceeds from the cap-and-trade auction program to invest in job training and transition programs to help workers and industries adapt to clean technology development and production. Obama will also create an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to connect disconnected and disadvantaged youth with job skills for a high-growth industry.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders: Obama will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund: Obama will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. Technology development. Obama will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the U.S
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025: Obama will establish a 25 percent federal Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) to require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. Is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology: Obama will significantly increase the resources devoted to the commercialization and deployment of low-carbon coal technologies. Obama will consider whatever policy tools are necessary, including standards that ban new traditional coal facilities, to ensure that we move quickly to commercialize and deploy low carbon coal technology.
Support Next Generation Biofuels
Deploy Cellulosic Ethanol: Obama will invest federal resources, including tax incentives, cash prizes and government contracts into developing the most promising technologies with the goal of getting the first two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol into the system by 2013.
Expand Locally-Owned Biofuel Refineries: Less than 10 percent of new ethanol production today is from farmer-owned refineries. New ethanol refineries help jumpstart rural economies. Obama will create a number of incentives for local communities to invest in their biofuels refineries.
Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Barack Obama will establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard to speed the introduction of low-carbon non-petroleum fuels. The standard requires fuels suppliers to reduce the carbon their fuel emits by ten percent by 2020.
Increase Renewable Fuel Standard: Obama will require 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels to be included in the fuel supply by 2022 and will increase that to at least 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels like cellulosic ethanol by 2030.
Set America on Path to Oil Independence
Obama’s plan will reduce oil consumption by at least 35 percent, or 10 million barrels per day, by 2030. This will more than offset the equivalent of the oil we would import from OPEC nations in 2030.
Increase Fuel Economy Standards: Obama will double fuel economy standards within 18 years. His plan will provide retooling tax credits and loan guarantees for domestic auto plants and parts manufacturers, so that they can build new fuel-efficient cars rather than overseas companies. Obama will also invest in advanced vehicle technology such as advanced lightweight materials and new engines.
Improve Energy Efficiency 50 Percent by 2030
Set National Building Efficiency Goals: Barack Obama will establish a goal of making all new buildings carbon neutral, or produce zero emissions, by 2030. He’ll also establish a national goal of improving new building efficiency by 50 percent and existing building efficiency by 25 percent over the next decade to help us meet the 2030 goal.
Establish a Grant Program for Early Adopters: Obama will create a competitive grant program to award those states and localities that take the first steps to implement new building codes that prioritize energy efficiency.
Invest in a Digital Smart Grid: Obama will pursue a major investment in our utility grid to enable a tremendous increase in renewable generation and accommodate modern energy requirements, such as reliability, smart metering, and distributed storage
Restore U.S. Leadership on Climate Change
Create New Forum of Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitters: Obama will create a Global Energy Forum — that includes all G-8 members plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa –the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.
Re-Engage with the U.N. Framework Convention on
Climate Change: The UNFCCC process is the main international forum dedicated to addressing the climate problem and an Obama administration will work constructively within it.
Barack Obama’s Record
Renewable Fuels: Obama has worked on numerous efforts in the Senate to increase access to and use of renewable fuels. Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps. The tax credit covers 30 percent of the costs of switching one or more traditional petroleum pumps to E85, which is an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend. Obama also sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.
CAFE: Obama introduced a bold new plan that brought Republicans and Democrats, CAFE supporters and long-time opponents together in support of legislation that will gradually increase fuel economy standards and offer what the New York Times editorial page called “real as opposed to hypothetical results.”
For More Information about Barack’s Plan http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Could you give me links websites to get nice statistics on energy consumptions?
You know interesting ones like :
the amount of money wasted in lighting light a light bulb a day is enough to feed 20 homeless people…
(not literally ..but you understand what I’m looking for??)
I’m trying to make a ‘fun’ presentation for kids on energy and why we are doomed and need to utilize renewable energy sources, mainly solar power( I would like statistics on that too…)
what is a problem to our environment in obtaining and using Nuclear energy?
How does it benefit us?How do we use it as an energy source?What harm are we causing Nuclear Energy by its use or obtaining it? What are 3 effects on using Nuclear Energy to the environment? What are 2 alternatives that would help in using this resource in a more productive way?What are 2 alternatives that would help protect the environment in obtaining/using Nuclear Energy?
I was wondering,my kid asked me and i was unable to answer so please answer,thanks.
I need an alternative that would help protect the environment in obtaining/using Nuclear Energy
Well man nuclear energy is actually pretty clean his teacher is apparently a environment nut there is nuclear waste but it is a very very small fraction of the waste of fossil fuels and other non renewable sources what happened in russia was stupidity they did not follow any saftey rules whatsoever the same will happen if we dont watch ours we have some but they only power like 2% of the nation and it will be perfectly fine one of my colleges suggested that the government would cease to give a crap about saftey for awhile which is true but nuclear facilities shouldnt be government controled but definatley supervised and have any organization take a tour and help make sure everything is safe and even if that happens there are 3 huge layers of protection if any nuclear event occured and it is very efficient the newer class of our aircraft carriers are nuclear no incidents have occured to date and it is better and cheaper than diesel and they only have to refuel once in their whole service which is expected to be about 40 years or more
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Why do environmentalists think green energy is reliable?
Did all of them forget that solar panels are extremely expensive and not cost effective, wind and most green energy are unreliable and that dams/hydro cause untold environmental damage to it’s surroundings?
Do they also think that Earth is running out of space to put a few barrels underground?
yes, they have become more cost-effective but are they reliable? Does no one else have answers to my other questions?
Define “environmentalists” and define “green”.
Based on everything else in the content, it appears you need to actually research the cost effectiveness of sustainable energy generation, realize that each variety of sustainable energy is suited for a given set of conditions that when combined form a whole as opposed to a single variety being a “one size fits all” solution, develop your risk assessment skills so that you can ascertain concepts like “the impacts of large scale air and water pollution are freakishly more damaging than all hydropower combined, in spite of the fact that hydropower is an imperfect although improving technology”, and realize that space is a resource as well. Then there’s the whole “you can only burn that stuff that takes millions of years to form at a much faster rate than it forms for so long” thing.
Aside from that, your counter argument sucks as well. If you’re going to discuss the faults of sustainable energy, you should at the very least hit on bird and bat strikes by wind turbines, migration impediments to both terrestrial and aquatic wildlife created by dams, maintenance issues associated with all new and developing technology, the inadequacy and ineffectiveness of bio-fuels, the extreme lack of adequate infrastructure, etc.
Also, your title attacks reliability while your text attacks efficiency and damage without any supporting details whatsoever.
What do you think of this one idea to provide a solution to alternative energy,global warming,welfare,economy?
It starts with a global reality show which is funded by world governments, and private entities, offering a substantial cash award, along with the first of its kind, global recogniton award for the best alternative energy source, as well as the most cost effective means to incorporate it into existing refinery sources, with the least amount of downtime and transitional cost. Also–Israel set up a donation system for planting trees resulting in 200 million trees planted. Why cant our government do the same by allowing tax breaks for people to donate money to the government for planting fruit trees. These trees produce oxygen, burn C02, and would result in greater agricultural exports, providing revenue, and the produce could be donated to welfare families, thereby reducing the amount of money each family would need to receive in federal funding. And eliminate people selling their food stamps. The reduction in welfare could save tax payers money. What do you think of this idea?
Engineers capable of developing new energy sources will not participate in a reality show, no matter how much you pay them.
There are plenty of viable sustainable energy technologies, they make energy that’s more expensive that fossil fuels.
Once we run out of fossils, their price will increase, and we will roll out alternative technologies.
Farmers already are paid to plant fruit trees via subsidies, and government is imposing quotas on agricultural output to keep farmers profitable.
You can’t export fruit from US, Latin american countries are willing to export it at much lower prices, and there are no takers.
Giving people free food keeps means they will stay on welfare forever, and so will their children. If you want to help the poor, you gotta give them work skills and culture of honest work.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers