admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

Ecologically speaking

the Sun
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.
Http://www.gepower.com/prod_serv/products/solar/en/index.htm

Wind
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.[1] Although wind produces only about 1.5% of worldwide electricity use,[1] 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.
Http://www.milwind.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

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.
Http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/wave.htm
http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/wave/index.cfm

Hydro-electricity

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.[1]

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.

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydropower

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

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:
http://www.vgb.org/daten_stromerzeugung-dfid-14541.html

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.”
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5279481

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.”
http://www.headliners.org/storylibrary/stories/2004/ligniteminecontroversyfuelspassion.htm?id=0932366845365051848298

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:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/electricityconsumption.html

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

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.

Http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/08/solar-roadways-crackpot-idea-or-ingenious-concept-video/

Edit:
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.

Edit2:

I started a question myself about the total energy thing .
Http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110331100328AAdISL9

admin answers:

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:[4]

* Agriculture
* Atmosphere
* Biodiversity
* Biotechnology
* Capacity-building
* Climate Change
* Consumption and Production Patterns
* Demographics
* Desertification and Drought
* Disaster Reduction and Management

* Education and Awareness
* Energy
* Finance
* Forests
* Fresh Water
* Health
* Human Settlements
* Indicators
* Industry
* Information for Decision Making and Participation
* Integrated Decision Making

* International Law
* International Cooperation for Enabling Environment
* Institutional Arrangements
* Land management
* Major Groups
* Mountains
* National Sustainable Development Strategies
* Oceans and Seas
* Poverty
* Sanitation

* Science
* Small Islands
* Sustainable tourism
* Technology
* Toxic Chemicals
* Trade and Environment
* Transport
* Waste (Hazardous)
* Waste (Radioactive)
* Waste (Solid)
* Water

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.

admin answers:

Try:
solar power
wind power

Did you know the sun produces the amount of energy the whole WORLD needs in 1 hour?

admin answers:

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.

Http://www.renewables-info.com/energy_news_and_reports/world_energy_use_-_quick_info.html

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

Sure.

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.

Renewable resources

admin answers:

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).

admin answers:

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.”

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA384.html

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:

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

Renewable energy is an ureliable endeavor. Comp engineers are always in need.

admin answers:

Solyndra,
Nanosolar
Miasole
First Solar
SunPower

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:

http://venturebeat.com/2007/06/13/silicon-valleys-new-solar-cell-companies-slipping-on-delivery-dates/

admin answers:

Troll is troll.

admin answers:

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!

Erik

admin answers:

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.

admin answers:

Register here https://www.coursera.org/ and here https://www.edx.org/ and try find course about green engineering.

admin answers:

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?