I am in policy debate and we have to do Aff. on Utah renewable energy. which whould be the best to do. Water, wind, biodeisel, toxic waste. just stuff like that. my partner and i have to choose one and we don't know what whould be better to do.
2007-02-19 05:26:15 · 6 answers · asked by jEN 2 in Environment
no one renewable energy source is relyable. so you should use more than one. my suggestions are wind and geothermal
2007-02-19 05:41:07 · answer #1 · answered by Zizi 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They look great on the surface but there's no detail. I'm going to imagine they're numbered to make it easier to write an answer. 1. Banking is already regulated; what would you change? I'm all for closing tax loopholes though. 2. Agree absolutely, although you have to clarify what proportion of your massive investment would go to each. Making a statement like that is an easy way to do the easy one (efficiency) without the hard one (generation). 3. Same problem as (2) -- I agree in principle but you have to say which will receive the lion's share. Waste management is much easier than public transport. 4. Do you mean new local authority housing stock, or cheap private landlords, and if the latter, how will they be subsidised? 5. Schools and hospitals are often new buildings which won't require insulation, so this should be part of a general rebuilding programme. Providing free insulation for homes is a good idea but unaffordable if done across the board. Who will get it, and who won't? 6. Define 'decent' and 'older'. Without those definitions this statement has no meaning. 7. Define 'massively'. Also, what is a 'citizen's income'? It's a lovely headline but has no intrinsic meaning.
2016-05-24 09:56:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My first choice would be water/hydro power - but since Utah does not have many large rivers (except maybe the Colorado) It is interesting there were no other possible answers. A good one would be Nuclear power in a breeder type reactor. The Power plant could continuously supply itself with new fuel, reprocess the waste products so the high level radioactive waste is kept in the reactor, The only gasses given off is a steam cloud, these also can have the largest power density for the smallest man-made footprint.
2007-02-19 05:38:06 · answer #3 · answered by mtnhiker026 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would do a partnership between wind and solar if solar was an option...and maybe and in biodeisel and water, but if you had an effecient way and "clean" way to use the toxic waste then go for that.
Dont listen to the mnthiker person because Nuclear Power is not clean at all or safe..its just as bad as coal.
2007-02-19 06:38:42 · answer #4 · answered by heather feather 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Conserve gas,... fart in a jar,... its renewable source we will never run out of,. argue that :)
2007-02-19 05:30:44 · answer #5 · answered by Z 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
either passive solar
or electric cars
2007-02-19 08:51:54 · answer #6 · answered by martinmagini 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋