We already know that the government is working on other possible fuel sources such as hydrogen, fission, etc. Well, I believe that in the amount of time and money spent on planning, research, and development of these POSSIBLE sources, we could introduce solar AND wind power as our future source. These two may not be able to support everyone seperately but together, think what could happen! Less emissions, pollution, trash; more clean air, more blue sky, more money for other things...why wouldn't this work? Why can't we use something guaranteed vs somethings that is possible?
2007-06-02 09:36:51 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment ➔ Alternative Fuel Vehicles
This is another question after I have read some of the responses. Why do you say that these resources are not available everywhere? WInd is all around the world and especially solar is available close to all the time. And when one is unavailable, the other would "pickup" for the other. And yes this may be only two but they are the most easily accessible (available to everybody and unending-there will always be wind and the sun). So for some of you who say that these options are unavailable to everyone, I don't quite understand where you are coming from...
2007-06-03 02:59:39 · update #1
Global warming is a big problem and we'll need all the tools we can get.
Lots of people have their own favorite solutions. But wind and solar can't do it all.
At the barest minimum, we also need nuclear, and we need some way to power vehicles.
2007-06-02 09:41:25 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
For starters these sorces are not "possible". They are already being used. We use hydrogen for some of our cars. We use the sources because lots of wind and solar cant be everywhere.
The farther electricity goes the more energy it loses. So if we were trying to get electricity to a place that doesn't have much wind or sun and is far away, there would be trouble.
Another reason is that solar and wind energy is expensive. Solar panels are in the thousands and wind isn't much better off. Who knows? These other alternative sources might be a great source of energy and be very effecient and cost less.
2007-06-03 16:02:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to remind you, Hydrogen is not a new fuel source. We can't mine Hydrogen. Its more of a storage and delivery system. I was mad to see how we are pushing so hard on Hydrogen, when we have workable cars running on electricity now. Everyone keeps saying that science will make Hydrogen fuel practical in 10 to 15 years. I like to remind people that was what they use to say about the cure for AIDS. I agree, we are putting all our eggs in one basket. Hydrogen may never be practical, electrical car has proven itself to be practical, and science are more likely to improve on batteries. I agree we should invest more money on Wind power. It maybe a bit expensive, but the cost is reasonable. Unlike what the other guy says, profit can be made from wind turbine after it is built. The main problem with wind, is it needs to be maintained. I think we should invest more money in improving solar, but we need to hold off installing it. It is not currently cost effective. Solar panel on the other hand require little to no maintenace though, because it has no moving parts.
2007-06-02 19:19:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with EAGLE but the fact of the matter is that your solution relies upon only two resources, which someone else pointed out may not be easily available in all other areas. An ideal solution would involve multiple options so that cross country driving would still be feasible.
i hope this helps
2007-06-02 23:05:29 · answer #4 · answered by msijg 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Good question!
I'm all for research/discovery/invention, but I agree with you that known alternative energy sources are grossly underused/underdeveloped. We currently have the technology, for instance, to make every home energy independent. However, for most home owners the cost of switching over to these sources is prohibitive. Our government could easily create forward-thinking initiatives and incentives that would make the transition attractive to individual home owners.
2007-06-02 16:55:57 · answer #5 · answered by Yinzer from Sixburgh 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I sincerely hope I'm not the only one who recently heard this researcher on a radio talk show. He was doing research for cancer using SEAWATER when he found how to use it as a fuel alternative. He has gotten his patent & is privately talking to large corprate investors. EPA has contacted him. If this is so, the we'd have an endless supply of energy. But I look for extreme resistance for economic reason, just as the used tires for a subsitute for pavement. That'd take so many jobs away, so says the "officials".
2007-06-02 17:18:57 · answer #6 · answered by Memeiko 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Seems like a good idea to me. I live in TX and I actually heard that some oil company was trying to see if they could get enough support tobuild another plant! Maybe a glacier will hit them in the head and knock some sense into them ;-)
2007-06-02 17:00:28 · answer #7 · answered by strpenta 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Total agreement....however, we are in a capitalist nation. Once they sell you the windmill or solar cell, there is no more revenue. But if business comes up with an idea that you can use, but must still buy.....well, guess which venue they're gonna go for.
2007-06-02 16:50:50 · answer #8 · answered by snoweagleltd 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the government cant regulate solar or wind power, so there fore they wouldn't make any money off of it, plain and simple, If it don't make money for the government, they wont do it.
2007-06-02 17:17:20 · answer #9 · answered by meandher47229 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because in some places those resources aren't available.
2007-06-02 19:39:07 · answer #10 · answered by ╣♥╠ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋