sustainable energy fund

Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Fund

Mark asks…

What is predicted to happen to the gas prices in california? will it ever drop?

What is predicted to happen to the gas prices in california? will it ever drop?
right now its like 5 bucks a gallon. is the price predicted to rise? when will the price start dropping again? which president do you think will help us stabilize our economy again and have decent prices for gas in california? it is outrageous.
maybe something bout US owning Antarctica? will that help the gas prices become more stable?

admin answers:

Sorry but high gas prices are here to stay until such a time exists that demand significantly decreases due to other options. The US produces about 3% of the oil on the market and we use about 25% of what is consumed worldwide. Today, China and India have a growing demand for cars and gas. Gas prices are about $9 a gallon in Europe so we really don’t have much room to complain. Both McCain and Obama will have their work cut out for them. Drilling off-shore will have no effect on gas prices for a long, long time other than some sort of immediate feel good sensation that our leaders are doing something. It will take 10 years before off-shore drilling will yield a drop. The best solution is for you and I to reduce our individual consumption and then support policies through your voting habits that fund alternative energy, conservation and sustainable living. The way I do that is to consolidate my car trips and my husband and I ride our bicycles to work. We thought about mileage when we purchased our vehicle 2 years ago, knowing that gas prices would go up (how could you not know???? I’ve known since I the oil embargo of 1973 and I was only 11!!!!) We live in the mountain southwest where it snows heavily in winter so we need an SUV and got a Honda Element, which is very fuel efficient. We voted to increase our sales tax locally to expand city bus service. The initiative passed and we hope to take the bus to work by next summer. The bottom line is that American lifestyles are going to have to change. Some people might tell you that such changes will set us down the road to a socialist way of life similar to Europe. Well I have traveled in Europe extensively and I don’t see them complaining about riding bicycles on municipally maintained bike paths and lanes or using public transit, which is fantastic. My travels suggest to me that middle class Europeans manage pretty well, despite having to pay $9 a gallon and use buses and trains to get to work and school. This is not outrageous, this is the real world.

William asks…

What are the benefits and limitations of the current method if nuclear waste disposal?

It is a long question.

If possible, please add details. If possible, because beggars can’t be choosers. I’d be thankful if you just wrote a sentence as long as it answers my question. Hell, I’d be thankful if you wrote a word.

This might be redundant, but thank you in advance for the people who answer.

admin answers:

A very important question due to the fact that the current method of dealing with high level radioactive waste is to safely contain it or isolate it from the human environment.

In fact to date, there is still no long term solution on how to safely dispose of radioactive nuclear waste.

What the governments don’t want us to know is:

1) Nuclear power is not as clean as they portray it to be.
2) Governments spend ten of millions of our tax dollars annually to promote nuclear energy as “clean”.
3) Tritium a by-product from nuclear power plants is routinely released into the air and water as a gas,; no filtering is economically feasible.
(Tritium is a carcinogen, causes radiogenic cancers, birth defects and genetic mutations)
4) Nuclear power is not sustainable technology.
5) Greenhouse gas emissions and environmental degradation due to uranium mining, milling and enrichment, transportation to power plants and storage facilities and storage maintenance is poisoning life on earth.
6) In the United States alone, geological data confirms that there are over 4,000 open pit and underground uranium mines, generating approximately 3 billion metric tons of toxic waste.
7) There is no safe storage or disposal solutions for the radioactive nuclear waste we produce on a daily basis.
8) Nuclear waste from spent fuel rods will remain radioactive for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years!
9) Nuclear power facilities worldwide are at risk of being attacked and or sabotaged as they make the perfect deadly weapon.
10) The term “Isolation” from the environment is relative due to the fact that radiation from the spent fuel will eventually be released into the biosphere over time.

The extreme longevity of nuclear waste is the one reason why we should not be producing it at all.
Until we discover a way to dispose of it safely or illiminate the waste completely a moratorium on the building of any more nuclear power facilities should be enforced.

Much research and funding has gone into the finding a viable solution to the nuclear waste problem.
Some of the proposals which have been very controversial and opposed have been;
Disposal of the radioactive waste deep below the earths surface in mined repositories deemed geologically sound.
This is the actual legal designated form of disposal to date, though it has not been demonstrated to be technically safe or infallable.
There have been other proposals in the past such as, shooting it up into space and burying it up underneath the polar ice caps.

One of the most troubling and insane ideas has been to bury it underneath the bedrock on the oceans floor. It would be almost impossible to monitor and it would take only one mistake to release and poison the earths oceans for millions of years.

Nuclear waste has been kept out of the publics mind and out of sight for the most part. This is done intentionally to avoid any opposition or public “watchdog” reviews.
It is the future of the planet that we are choosing to ignore when we let government and corporations take control of such an important issue. The nuclear power industry has only one objective, to make money! To promote their industry.
The more nuclear power plants built, the more radioactive waste the earth is going to be contaminated with.
Our future generations will be burdened with monitoring the millions of storage facilities littering the face of the earth.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Fund

Sandra asks…

What is the difference between democrats and republicans?

What is the difference between democrats and republicans? I really don’t understand the difference and why some people hate republicans and why some people hate democrats.

admin answers:

These are only broad generalizations and any one Democrat or Republican may differ from their party on a particular issue.

Social:

Abortion – Democrats believe a woman should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, Republicans support the life of the fetus

Homosexuality – Democrats wish to extend rights to homosexuals (right to adopt, legalize civil unions or same-sex marriage, right to serve openly in the military), Republicans believe granting rights to homosexuals will destroy the traditional (man + woman) family structure and harm children

Guns – Republicans oppose most gun control laws. Most Democrats support some measure of gun control, though this varies widely from politician to politician. Many are in complete agreement with Republicans, many would be satisfied with only stricter enforcement of current laws and closing the gun-show loophole, and many want further restricted access.

Environment – Democrats are in favor of policies that would limit the omission of carbon dioxide and develop sustainable energy. This is an area where many Republicans disagree with each other. Some deny there is climate change, some accept climate change but do not this human activity is responsible, and some accept that human activity has led to climate change. Of those in the last group, some support government action to reduce human impact on the environment, others do not.

Economic:

Taxes: Democrats favor of a more progressive tax system (one in which a person pays a larger percentage the more they make) and want to raise taxes on those making $250,000 per year or more. Republicans favor keeping taxes at the levels passed under President Bush or cutting them. This is one area where the rhetoric of both parties does not match well with the numbers, as the actual difference in percentages is quite small (about 4% for the top bracket) when compared with historical income tax data.

Public spending: Both parties support continuing Medicare. Most Democrats support some expansion of government health coverage. Republicans oppose further government involvement in the health sector. Democrats support more funding for food stamps, unemployment, Medicaid etc. Than do the Republicans. Democrats support continuing government-run Social Security. Republicans have a mixed record and under President Bush pushed the idea of Social Security privatization. Democrats are in favor of spending on infrastructure. Some Republicans favor these programs and some do not.

Labor: Democrats support the Employee Free Choice Act while Republicans believe it would lead to coercion on the part of unions and harm businesses. Democrats favor raising the minimum wage while many Republicans feel this would also harm businesses.

Corporate regulations: Democrats generally favor increased regulations in the private sector. Republicans generally oppose restriction on the free market.

Government spending in general: Both parties, particularly the Republicans, vocally support curtailing government spending. However, neither party does much on this front. In modern times, Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush have been the highest spenders in percentage of GDP. Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton have been some of the more fiscally conservative. President Obama’s first year in office was marked by high spending. Democrats say this spending was necessary, using the New Deal as a historical model. Republicans say that increasing the debt will further harm the economy. Both parties usually blame the other when it comes to spending.

Foreign policy and homeland security:

Iraq: Many Democrats supported the invasion, many did not. Democrats have favored deescalation since before the 2004 elections. Agreements to begin the withdrawal of troops were begun under President Bush.

Afghanistan: Some Democrats support increased troop involvement in Afghanistan – which President Obama ran under – some favor withdrawal. Republican in general support escalation.

International relations: Democrats favor increased diplomacy with both allies and enemies. Republicans feel the tone of the Obama administration has been too apologetic and hurts American security.

Gitmo: Democrats are in favor of closing Gitmo and sending the prisoners to other facilities, some within the United States. They are opposed to techniques such as waterboarding. Many Republicans are opposed to closing Gitmo, although President Bush and John McCain as a candidate both supported closing it. Many Republicans believe enhanced interrogation techniques helped security, though there are notable exceptions such as John McCain.

Privacy vs. Security: Democrats are vocally opposed to any infringements on civil rights, such as NSA warrantless surveillance and provisions under the Patriot Act. Republicans feel such actions are necessary to protect citizens.

George asks…

What is your position on the use of taxpayer dollars to fund green energy companies?

admin answers:

If it was a form of energy that is sustainable, and actually works, and the company actually makes a profit, then I have no problem with it. I just have a problem with politicians giving the money away as political favors.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Fund

Michael asks…

How do I switch to a GREEN energy provider?

I want to switch to a provider that uses renewable resources but I’m not sure how to go about doing so, any help would be appreciated.

admin answers:

Like the former said, you should contact your utility provider for help on this subject. You can switch to a sustainable source if you ask for it, although it can cost more (in my opinion, you’re funding a good research cause). Otherwise you can start making your house green with better insulation, or placing solar panels and wind turbines on/around your house to power locally.

Remember, the less distance energy has to travel, the less electric junk has to be built to sustain that energy that comes from faraway powerplants. Also it is a higher-quality energy, and less energy is lost by heat through this process (more efficient).

Hey man, power to you
pun intended.

Charles asks…

Why do we want to bankrupt the coal industry?

The U.S. is very rich with coal that we have the knowledge to convert and use as alternative fuel. Why would we spend more tax-payer’s dollars to fund Pres Elect Barry’s plan to look for other solutions when the answer is right under our noses? Why is this not in America’s best interests? Is it because the big wigs in the oil industry have the whole system of government on their payroll? That would explain those outrageous gas prices we were dealing with. Then when they realized they were helping to destroy the economy; they lowered the prices out of guilt. What is the “official” reason for the decline anyways?

admin answers:

First and foremost, because it’s destroying the planet. Second, coal is a dying technology; CO2 emissions control is inevitable and imminent, so sinking the kind of capital required to make a large dent in oil imports would be incredibly uneconomical. China is going to transition to more nuclear plants and renewable sources, as India is currently doing. Third, C2L is not a sustainable solution; it merely prolongs and exacerbates the problem. Fourth… Who am I kidding, you’re not going to listen anyways.

“Is it because the big wigs in the oil industry have the whole system of government on their payroll?”

Indirectly, yes. The reason we don’t have a real energy policy like the UK, France, or Sweden is very much because of the corrupt piggy bank/revolving door relationship between the US government and the oil companies. However, what you’re proposing is not any kind of solution. What’s with the right’s carbon-fuel fetish anyways?

“Then when they realized they were helping to destroy the economy; they lowered the prices out of guilt.”

Actually, it’s a harbinger of very bad things to come – a deflationary economic collapse.

“What is the ‘official’ reason for the decline anyways?”

It was mostly a result of a short-run supply shortfall, but in 2007-2008 it was greatly exacerbated by commodities speculation. The speculation was itself fueled by the Fed and other central banks, who tried to re-inflate the housing bubble in the west by monetary expansion. However, the money went not into equities or debt, but commodities and foreign currencies.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Fund

Robert asks…

I am currently enrolled in a “Sustainable Systems” course, and we have been asked, as groups, to create and im?

I am currently enrolled in a “Sustainable Systems” course, and we have been asked, as groups, to design and implement a project to make our University campus or surrounding community more sustainable. Our group has come up with several ideas, but none that are feasible provided the funding (none) or other resources that are at our disposal. My question is, what are some simple, yet effective, projects that we could undertake and actually make a small difference in the future health, environment, or economics of our community?

admin answers:

Switching all lights to energy saving globes.

Our university had stickers near each light switch reminding us to turn them off if not in use.

Could have sensors in rooms for lights too.

In regards to computers the university could start moving towards terminal servers instead of desktops (if they have this setup).

My university use to have a box next to printers for all one-sided printed paper that you didn’t want … This paper was then used to make scribble pads for students.

Also having recylce bins near printers for paper.

Recylce bins around the campus for paper, bottles, cans etc.

Encourage riding to and from the university (or walking, or public transport) … Cut down on driving.

Could have waterless urinals … Instead of water special cakes are used in them to neturalise the urine.

Could have flow limiters on all taps (especially in bathrooms). Or have push down taps or sensors so they aren’t left on.

Encourage all to set their air conditioners at a specific temperature (many will set it too low in summer and too high in winter). Encourage the use of natural warming and cooling systems (e.g. Open window, shut blinds etc.)

Could try to organise a community garden within the uni grounds. Within that garden you could have a compost, and then compost food scraps in there (no meats).

Sharon asks…

Is the greed for short term profits essentially why western economies fail in a long term crisis?

The way in which we neglect our energy infrastructure, refuse to develop anything but software and military advances even though we possess the unique ability, for the time being, to achieve far more toward the long term goal of reaching a sustainable, industrial civilization?
You all have valid points- the sad thing is that our problems stem from excessive greed and an out of touch government, more so before than now however but it may already be too late.

admin answers:

I reckon that you’re right on there… But some level of hunger for profit, i think, is a very good thing..

But what we’re actually missing is a tax-free super-rich class, that has nothing better to do than to invent new stuff… Like the JPMorgans/Rockerfellers/Fords, etc… Instead, we now have billions of dollars of profits going into huge funds, managed by companies that take exhorbatant fees, and dilute the economies of scale created by these huge insititutions…

I reckon that one dude, earning $50b a year, would find much more socially beneficial ways to manage such an income, than would 10,000,000 shareholders getting an average of $5,000 each….

Eh, rant over… That’s definately something you notice these days.. There used to be a huge differnece between traveling between ‘western’ and ‘eastern’ nations.. Now, often, traveling to eastern nations is regularly more efficient and more pleasant than coming home… Better roads, more traffic, but less traffic jams.. Better tubes, etc…. And what do we have? Huge welfare projects to compensate us for our guilt complex that we get from some people making ‘so much’ money…

Funny… Imagine how much cool stuff could be done if we went back to 1900’s welfare levels, with all that money spent instead on infrastructure…

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Fund

Laura asks…

How can I get funding to reconstuct an old house and start a community awareness prog for sustainability?

We want to educate our neighborhood about sustainable building options. The project is called the Lemon Road House Project and is based in Olympia, Washington. We will deconstruct a 60 year old house and construct a energy efficient, sustainable house to use as a focal point for the community education program. We need funding in the way of grants, donations, etc. Any suggestions?

admin answers:

Im doing fund raising for the 40hour famine in one day i collected $50, but if u get a few people to go around collecting money from generous people and make people aware of this issue you could get quite a bot on money

Ruth asks…

Should Governments be rebuilding the economy – or developing a new, sustainable one?

Government funds now propping up “old” economic structures (commercial banks) and outdated infrastructure (cars/freeways) – and strategies like Emission Trading Schemes framed to protect polluters “to save jobs” – could be funding pollution-free energy systems etc to answer Climate Change, CREATING new jobs — and an economy aimed at need instead of merely “created wants”. But how widespread is awareness of options? And acceptance of Climate Change warnings?

admin answers:

Yes, however, politicians aren’t really qualified to do so. It is up to “we the people” to make change by changing ourselves. I am optimistically thinking that the anti-change camp (conservatives) are in decline. And that the younger generations are smarter. But those who fear change are still powerful and they are doing all they can to stop progress. Awareness is growing, but it is difficult to see or hear. To see why just visit the “Global warming” category here. The deniers seem to be a majority. And they are very emotional, downright religious, about the issue. Just keep in mind that their emotional state is evidence that they are losing, and they are losing because of their own self destructive emotions. YAY! The so called “evidence” they keep presenting is so wrong it’s hilarious. They are actually claiming that the Earth is cooling, and the ice caps are growing. Their own lies will be their own undoing.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers