Your Questions About Sustainable Energy Solutions
Richard asks…
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?
admin answers:
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.
Robert asks…
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?
admin answers:
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
