Why are we still using fossil fuels in 2007?

Question

why not invest in exploring ways of producing clean energy?

Answer 1

Why - because fossil fuel is the lowest cost & easiest to distribute fuel available. There is no practicle alternative. If you could come up with a cheaper alternative fuel that provided consumers the flexibility they currently enjoy with fossil fuel you would quickly surpass Bill Gates on the richest person list.

If you don't think there are companies, universities, individuals out there looking at alternative fuels your are saddly misinformed.

Answer 2

> Why are we still using fossil fuels in 2007?
The infrastructure for exploiting these is in place and entrenched.

> why not invest in exploring ways of producing clean energy?
Oh, there is some investment going on. What we need is a government program on the order of the Space Program.

Answer 3

That was asked back in the 1970s, and when the worldwide price of oil plummeted in the 80s, people forgot all about alternatives to fossil fuels until 9/11.

The biggest technology pushes in the last 20s years have been to make it easier and faster for you do word processing and surf the web. Its a pity that Intel and the rest of the microelectroncs industry hasn't pursued increasing the efficiencies in manufacturing of solar PV cells or increasing their poor performance.

And even this week I asked a question about spending Iraq War money on fusion research. Last time I looked I only had one response. People aren't even being told about that one which if perfect would indeed be the magic bullet that would stop global warming and end the refining of gasoline.

Answer 4

I totally agree with Xfactor and Cynthia. If we were to suddenly implement a clean fuel or solar energy (I suspect it is already available) The entire economy would collapse. Imagine what would happen with the stock exchange and prices would sky-rocket. The oil companies wouldn't exactly go under but be enormously diminished if other types of power were used. And those with stocks in those companies would go broke. (why does that sound good to me?)
The most serious problem is that when those higher in the food chain get wind of an actual usable source of power they do everything they can to destroy the lives of the independent researchers and their work to prevent them from moving forward to putting it in the hands of the general public. God forbid we should have free power for our homes. What they want is to government control all studies and research so that those oil companies will have first dibs at how to screw us out of cheap resources. god I hate bureaucracy. Check out : http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16736&ch=biztech There are countless articles to read.

Answer 5

It's all about economics. The companies who advocate utilization of petroleum products are major players with our economy -- take a look at our current administration. There is a lot of investment in oil companies. In addition, you have to realize that major subsidies continue to go to our primary energy companies whereas, research and development monies are minimal to alternative fuel research. If you want to know more, research the energy policy for the United states.

Answer 6

The dude had it right as well as couple of others. It is simply the most economical. This is 2007, 100 years after they invented the automobile and airplane. Your questions ignores how far we came. I do agree that we should explore other fuels. We do have a very clean alternative, nuclear power, but the Jane Fonda's and the anti-corporate left nuked that idea. They don't like dams. They don't like wind mills in thier back yard. The problem is they don't like anything. They just like to compain.

Answer 7

POLITICS, seriously. Currently the clean energy sources are noto the most efficient but like anything else in this day and age, they will get better. If there were programs and more grants and support for such initiatives, the process would be greatly sped up. don't count on the government to take care of it anytime soon but as the general starts to demand cleaner energy (high gas prices can be good for something huh?) the private sector will finally have more of a profit incentive to develop it.

Answer 8

Because they haven't figured out a way to use other energy sources. Fission (splitting atoms) produces a lot of radiation, so people do not want to use it. The scientists are still debating on whether they sould research a way to create fusion (joining atoms to make another atom of another element) on Earth. It requires extremely high temperatures, as high as those found on the sun, so it is not possible on Earth yet. Others are proposing using solar energy. They don't know what they want to use yet.

Answer 9

trust me mate i agree with you but for now people just want to hop in a car & go & think nothig about the concequences
car manafacturers dont help by building all cars that have fuel guzzeling engines
the goverment dont want to upset the eb & flo of every day life by voting for cleaner emissions
& to be honest do you think that every time you put the kettle on for a pot of te or the mic for a quick dinner or even the light to see
but most of all when its snowing outside would you think lets not put the fire on because that will use up some of our fossil fuels & kill 30 birds in theantartic & 2 seals & maybe a dolphin or two

OF CORSE YOU DONT ITS BLOODY COLD & YOU WANT TO BE WARM

Answer 10

Good question. Why? It is certainly no mystery. The bottom line appears to be for the sake of profits (to answer the first question). It seems that we are more motivated by material wealth than spiritual growth. In any event, Brazil is almost completely energy self sufficient, thanks to the development of biofuels (ethanol from sugar cane) in the past thirty years or so.