English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

Yes -if alternatives to fossil fuel were implimented worldwide.

In order to meet our short term needs a mixture of solutions would be required, including nuclear fission, wind turbines, solar power, wave power, e.t.c.

For our longer term needs governments should be heavily financing research into nuclear fusion in my opinion. This invloves getting energy from the fusion of radioactive hydrogen atoms into harmless helium (basically the reaction that produces energy from the sun). Massive amounts of energy could be produced very cheaply by nuclear fusion without any harmful waste products. The problem is that governments are not very willing to go down that road, since it would be very expensive to get nuclear fusion power stations going in the first place, although it would be the most cost effective solution in the long run in terms of both energy and money.

2007-03-01 06:41:01 · answer #1 · answered by Spacephantom 7 · 1 0

Throw all your gadgets away, in realtiy the globe is in the hands of China and America.

To give you a reality check if the UK turned off all its powerststations today that still wouldn't be enough to counter ONE YEAR of Chinas year on year increased emmisions.

2007-03-01 03:55:24 · answer #2 · answered by budda m 5 · 0 0

YES!!!
if someone built solar power plats that covered only about 9% of Nevada, the USA's energy needs would be completely met.

it's all desert anyway.

2007-02-28 11:08:01 · answer #3 · answered by Thinker Paul 3 · 0 0

Yes, go nuclear.

France is 85% nuclear and has half the UK's CO2 footprint.

2007-02-28 21:57:43 · answer #4 · answered by amancalledchuda 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers