hard to say really, because solar energy not taken from photosynthesis will require production of high purity silicon, will eat up lots of soil for placing the panels, etc.
Burning coal _and_ getting plants to absorb all the released CO2 would be less polluting than covering whole counties with solar collectors. Unfortunately that isn't done.
Atomic fission creates lots of radioactive garbage which is a pollution issue both in itself and in the measures that have to be taken to keep it safe.
Larger cars don't do anything against pollution - more mass means more energy just to move the vehicle, so unless more people use the larger car at the same time, no energy saved, but vice versa..
2006-06-07 10:01:17
·
answer #1
·
answered by jorganos 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
well first off... atomic energy, burning coal, and cars of any size are some of the biggest polluters on this planet.
There are many extremely effective ways to reduce pollution, depending on what kind of pollution. solar energy can only be used for certain things, and certainly reduces pollution. Wind turbines are beginning to account for a lot of urban energy instead of nuclear power plants and burning fossil fuels.
Cars will now start to shift to the hydrogen fuel-cell to reduce one of the largest polluters on the planet, burning gasoline. These cars will only emit gaseous water into the atmosphere, making 100% safe.
2006-06-07 16:57:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mike B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
larger cars are the ones that pollute more. What we need is smaller cars or hybrids. Solar energy would work too.
2006-06-07 16:55:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by the Politics of Pikachu 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Those are my only choices? Atomic or coal energy for the next 50 years, they're doing some amazing stuff with coal gasification these days. You should check it out.
Solar's not really viable yet.
2006-06-07 16:54:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Joe 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Solar energy is the thing on that list i think would work best.
2006-06-07 16:55:04
·
answer #5
·
answered by BonesofaTeacher 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel silly answering, but the 2 points swayed my decision. Solar energy.
2006-06-07 16:54:04
·
answer #6
·
answered by soapy 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think the best one is solar anergy, but pollution can be best reduced by using the less of things that can be converted in garbage
2006-06-07 16:56:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by karlai a 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Common sense.
2006-06-07 16:54:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by will 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
SOLAR ENERGY
2006-06-07 16:54:50
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mr.Scientist 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
solar power and recycling
2006-06-07 16:55:16
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋