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

I had a great idea and I just wanted some feedback for it. Do you think it is plausible or even possible to create new jobs and better energy by putting people to work turning turbines manually for money? I keep hearing things about the growing number of unemployed people in America (and around the world) and it just seemed like we could kill two birds with one stone. Tell me what you think.

2007-05-31 08:25:38 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment Green Living

8 answers

There might be a way to resolve both, but that isn't it. People, even a LOT of people, just couldn't turn those turbines long enough or fast enough to make enough energy. And personally, you couldn't pay ME enough! That work would just be TOO hard. Perhaps instead, we could teach people who are unemployed to make, install and/or repair things such as solar panels/cells, turbines, etc. - or - teach them about "green" constuction so new homes and buildings would be more energy efficient and existing homes/buildings could become so. I'm sure there are many more options. The tricky part is getting the unemployment/social services offices in on it.

2007-05-31 09:08:39 · answer #1 · answered by ♪♪BandMom♪♪ 5 · 2 0

Well if there were teams of people doing it it might work, but you're best bet would be a bunch of pedellers, like a whole bike team.
Set a goal that they have to reach before going home, and whatever they top over that they get an incentive.

I also think it would be a good idea to fundraise for schools, or as a health program incentive for corporations with large building and electrical overhead, or massive space to heat or cool.

2007-05-31 08:39:07 · answer #2 · answered by Ty 3 · 1 0

maximum politicians are conditioned to respond partisan-variety to any difficulty. a number of it incredibly is in simple terms habit, some inclination, some political philosophy; various it is in simple terms exploiting a important difficulty to play to the 'swing' voters. besides the incontrovertible fact that, it is authentic that their respective financial contributors (and the various foyer experts such powerhouses hire) will attempt to dilute and divert any measures taken to handle international warming or relieve environmental tension or safeguard the ecology which might adversely result their commercial operations. regrettably, to incredibly handle eco-friendly subject concerns with important action WILL harm the hobbies of massive company and enormous industries. in addition to, the buyer financial gadget the West has been reared on is unsustainable - so there is an inevitable tension, and which would be expressed politically. 'Realpolitik' will proceed to dictate the schedule for it sluggish to come back - lots of denial, equivocation and 'greenspin' - yet, finally, certainty bites. it constantly does (as in Iraq). The sensible ones (Sarkozy, to illustrate) will stay previous to the activity, yet i could propose many conservatives (international, no longer in elementary terms interior the U. S.) run a intense danger of being marooned on the political equivalent of a sparkling Orleans rooftop.

2016-12-12 07:42:13 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

NY Times had article related to your question couple of days ago about this company that hires employeed guys to go out and collect restaurant grease to sell for biofuel.

As few others had mentioned, having unemployeed crank turbines manually would not be very viable but you can hire people to collect oil, recycle or even teach green methods would be great idea.

Also, in rural areas, they can learn to farm organically or help our in organic farms.

The link to the article is below.

2007-05-31 10:07:46 · answer #4 · answered by msnln 2 · 1 0

Have you ever tried to light a 100 watt lightbulb by turning a generator? Most people cannot do it for very long. you will be amazed at the amount of effort required.

I know that it is tempting, and it would give some people a great workout, however the amount of energy that you would get would be very small and the costs would be very large.

2007-05-31 08:35:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

One person can generate less than a dollar of energy per day. I estimated this from these two facts: One horse power is 746 watts, and a physically fit person can generate less than half a horse power (I seem to recall a trained athlete can generate 1/3 HP, but I doubt he could do it all day, day in and day out). So assuming the strong, physically fit person were paid to ride a stationary bicycle attached to a generator 8 hours a day, he could generate less than 0.746/2*8= about 3 KWh per day. I pay less than 9 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity.

2007-05-31 08:42:03 · answer #6 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 1 0

Actually we have the one of the lowest unemployment rates of any country. In 1998, for example, when the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.5 percent, Canada’s rate was 8.3 percent, and the rate for the European Union was even higher, at 9.9 percent. So don't believe what you hear.

2007-05-31 09:37:46 · answer #7 · answered by en tu cabeza 4 · 1 0

Well, we could let global warming kill off our species, or most of it, and voila -- no more unemployment.

2007-05-31 11:16:50 · answer #8 · answered by BAL 5 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers