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

the entire country

but we wont do it because of the poor ooil companies

2007-12-05 13:46:12 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

craigh 63 im a conservative

2007-12-05 13:58:31 · update #1

i dont care how much it costs cause it will turn out vetter fr future generations

2007-12-05 14:00:28 · update #2

if we keep nucear power global warming will be coming very soon

2007-12-07 12:27:22 · update #3

18 answers

Do you know how much that would cost? I think covering an average roof with solar panels costs $10,000.

As for transmission, the Middle Atlantic States are going to be exceeding their transmission capacity in about 5 years, but people are protesting the proposal to build transmission lines. How are you going to get the electricity from there to where it is needed.

Here's the number I come up with (please someone check my math) if you could do it for 1 dollar per square foot...$7,772,051,865,600,000,000. Even if I am off by an order of magnitude or two, I would think any industry, especially oil companies, would love to set up this system. Oh and you are also forgetting about the environmental impact statement. Add 15 to 20 years to your solution.

2007-12-05 13:55:15 · answer #1 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 0 3

There is a reason why BP basically has a monopoly on solar panels.


Long comment covering many energy issues.

Really simple... not very intrusive. Any new construction needs to have a grid type solar system in place..... I believe Italy already has a similar policy in place.

Grid type runs off the sun during the day and runs off the grid at night... Also during the day what you don't used turns your gauge backwards... If it’s not sunny you pull of the grid...

With the 100's of thousand of new homes and building built a year the demand for panels would sky rocket and prices would drop. It also creates jobs with; installing, sales, and manufacturing of them... (There is a reason BP has the solar market cornered)

Doing this makes the plug in (ev) cars allot more attractive... Because your fuel (electricity) would basically cost you nothing...

Just think no more rolling black outs on hot sunny days, the sunnier the more electricity you make.

Over 30 years ago Jimmy Carter had a system like this installed on the white house. One of Reagan 1st acts was having it removed...

I am taking this step in the next couple years... I am building a home and it will have a solar grid system in it. Currently it’s about 30grand... Half of it is taxed credited roughly between the State and Feds. Plus having little to no electric bill will save me. It’s about an 8 year ROI but it still better then investing in other things!!!

There is more oil in ND and CO then ANWR that is not being taped... I live in oil country. ANWR is a Joke... It would be about 10 years before it hits the system and well by then we could be almost off of it.

Other thoughts. Maybe the next president should not have closed door meetings with oil exes when they make the next policy...


1978 the average MPG was 17... In 1988 the average MPG was 27 in 2006 the average MPG was 17...

What happened? 1978 Oil crunch, compact cars became something every one wanted. Only 5 SUV available on the market.

1988 Fuel Injection kicked in... Still less then 10 SUV's available on the market....

2006 Over 104 different SUV’s and 4x4 available on the market.... Make up 53% of total new vehicle sales.

You don't have to get ride of SUVs and 4x4 but all manufactures need to reduce the sales percentage. Maybe no more then 10% of total sales.... Jack up the price on them so they have the "bling" factor back and remain profitable...

Maybe make a tax incentive for Energy. The larger the percentage of profit they make on renewable energy the more the tax rate decreases. Of course this incentive would have to have a sundown clause in it...

2007-12-05 13:51:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Well guess what kiddies. Did you know that Einstein devised a plan for solar power that would generate enough power for all of the globe from one source in space.
I was a satellite in space with an adjustable prism
to aim radio beams that had been converted from solar rays,to converter power stations around the world.
Why arn't we doing research on this source?
That will do away with taking up 1000's of miles of land mass,and the astronomical price tag.
Lower the price for individual home converters for back up in case of power failures.
This method could be converted to automobiles,for electrical power. More power in than the moter uses means perpetual power.
It's a thought.

2007-12-05 14:17:11 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If there were a profit to be made doing it, it would be done.
At this time solar panels are NOT an economical choice. They are costly, they are easy to damage. They cannot produce enough electricity to pay for their initial cost prior to the need to replace them .
Since electricity must be distributed, there is NO WAY the power produced in Arizona can be distributed nation wide.
IT CAN'T WORK!!!!

2007-12-05 14:00:31 · answer #4 · answered by Philip H 7 · 1 1

in case you had the transmission lines to carry the skill to the completed united states of america, and it change into sunny 24/7, then definite. regrettably, neither condition exists, so no. this is the priority with most of the alternative aspects, they don't furnish a continuous circulate of skill, or they could in basic terms perform in distant places the position there is not any means to transmit the skill to the grid, so the fossil gas depending flora nonetheless want to be lively and on line. it really is why nuclear remains the in basic terms fairly potential decision skill source on the present time.

2016-10-26 13:25:44 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That would be a multi trillion dollar commitment .
Sounds like a good plan but it will never happen .

Solving problems and good planning is not ever going to happen .

How do we decide who has to work .

In a society only about 1/3rd the people need to be working at anytime period .

So what would people tend to do if that problem was solved . All we need is food and shelter ----clothing optional depending on climate .

2007-12-05 13:53:53 · answer #6 · answered by TroubleMaker 5 · 0 1

Yes, I knew it, but don't worry, other countries will soon do this because they don't cater to big oil the way we Americans do.

Last year, German scientists went to the Sahara desert in Africa and concluded that if they placed several thousand 10 meter large mirrors in the desert and angled them to concentrate on certain points, they could produce enough energy to power most of continental Europe.

This is good news for the environment and good news for Africa, because if those mirrors are placed on African soil, that will pump much needed money into Africa's economies.

Other countries are already working on this stuff.

Hopefully, we'll catch up after Bush is gone.

2007-12-05 13:52:02 · answer #7 · answered by Tony Y 2 · 4 1

Just think of how much power you could produce in 100 square miles with about 40 nuclear reactors...48000 megawats.
Kinda doubt that solar can make that juice...sorry.

2007-12-05 14:10:20 · answer #8 · answered by John W 3 · 0 0

You are right, we won't do it until we have a huge depression brought on by exorbitant fuel costs.
FDR built dams to bring electric power to the west and the Tennessee Valley Authority to bring power to the impoverished Southeast. Let's hope those who have to rescue this country in the future are as resourceful in utilizing solar power and wind power.
Saddest part is the oil companies have the $'s to start a whole new industry and continue to make the big bucks--tunnel vision.

2007-12-05 13:54:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 2

It has far more to do with the cost. The initial cost of the technology is far More expensive than oil. The tax rebates are growing and as the demand for renewable power goes up more power tax rebates will offset the cost. There is no conspiracy.

2007-12-05 13:54:46 · answer #10 · answered by Pablo 6 · 1 2

fedest.com, questions and answers