Green Living Q & A

The Expert answers:

Go green and save money!
[url=http://gogreen-info.com]Green Renewable Energy[/url]

The Expert answers:

I don’t buy into McCain’s claim at all, McCain has absolutely no solid history of supporting truly clean energy sources. I agree with all of the sources that you have selected pointing to the fact that John S. McCain does not really care about the environment except to get votes. It is clearly the trend for politicians to say that they care about the environment in order to win, if any politician runs on a policy that completely ignores the environment they will surely lose. McCain’s positions are for show and are only because this is an election year.

There is one thing that I disagree with that you said, it is that bio-energy is a clean energy source. Bio energy is only a clean energy source when it comes from our waste products, such as vegetable oil from restaurants or biological waste generated from food or other sources. If we go and take corn and turn that into fuel, we are reducing the amount of food available to the world as well was creating more pollutants such as fertilizer and pesticides in order to grow enough corn to feed our fuel needs as well as the world. If you make the calculation for the conversion of all of the corn we produce in the United States into ethanol, we would only be able to cover 1/5 of our needs for transportation, this does not even cover for our needs in electricity generation.

The calculation:
13000000000 bushels of corn produced every year
2.85gal ethanol per bushel
37050000000 gallons of ethanol a year
210435275000 motor gasoline used in the United states each year
37050000000/210435275000 = .17 -> 17% of transportation needs met
this is under the false assumption that ethanol is just as efficient or even more efficient than gasoline.

The Expert answers:

Let’s clarify the topic and discuss what oil we’re talking about. With approximately one-fifth of the world’s proven oil reserves and some of the lowest production costs, Saudi Arabia is expected to remain the world’s largest net oil exporter in the near and long-term.

Even some portion of the cost of our military presence in the Gulf is typically included in the “oil subsidy” figures:
“Quantifying the national security costs associated with ensuring the safe and reliable delivery of foreign oil is difficult. The Congressional Research Service estimated in 1997 that those costs may be anywhere between $0.5-65 billion, or 1.5 cents to 30 cents per gallon for motor fuel from the Persian Gulf. Agreement about the extent of the military’s ‘oil mission’ is difficult because military and foreign policy expenditures are generally tasked with multiple missions and objectives, and oil security is simply one mission of many. Analysts disagree about how to divide those missions into budgetary terms.”
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/01/18/how-large-are-federal-oil-subsidies/

Due to the Bush family’s close ties with the Saudi royal family, for the past 2 decades much of the energy policy and foreign policy in the United States has been centered around doing favors for them, like inexplicably attacking their enemy Iraq, even though it was 15 Saudis who attacked America on 9/11.

Once the war broke out, Saudi Arabian citizens continued to attack us where we were closest and most convenient… In Iraq.

“Of 1,200 suspected suicide bombers arrested by Syrian authorities since the beginning of the war in 2003, 85 percent have been Saudis.” (2005)
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?53217-The-Devil-You-Think-You-Know

So why is the U.S. Doing all of this? You can be sure that out of those billions in oil subsidies allocated by our elected officials, a healthy flow of cash returns to line their pockets in the form of so-called “campaign contributions” which they are free to pocket and use as they please.

“I summon my blue-eyed slaves anytime it pleases me. I command the Americans to send me their bravest soldiers to die for me. Anytime I clap my hands a stupid genie called the American ambassador appears to do my bidding. When the Americans die in my service their bodies are frozen in metal boxes by the US Embassy and American airplanes carry them away, as if they never existed. Truly, America is my favorite slave.” King Fahd Bin Abdul-Aziz, Jeddeh 1993

So how much does it cost to buy an oil-friendly, Saudi-friendly Congress?

A while ago I ran across statistics stating that Senator James Inhofe alone had accepted over $500,000 from the fossil fuel industry. Do you suppose that his vote on oil subsidies might possibly have a statistically significant alignment with those contributions? Hmm, I wonder…

Lets live in the real world for a moment, and not kid ourselves and dream that this is about right or wrong.

We either need to outlaw bribery and properly categorize it as treason and a hangable offense, or the renewable energy industry needs to ante up and pay off all of Congress in an amount competitive with the fossil fuel industry’s payoffs. Half a mil to every outstretched hand, requiring a budget of roughly $300 million, may be required before renewable energy can be seriously discussed at the bargaining table.

Of course our Saudi benefactors and other cumulative forces of Big Oil would respond and raise the stakes, and our civil servants will draw out the battle for years to milk the competition for all its worth before doing anything that might end their windfall cash flow. So the total budget required to see this issue through to the first healthy discussion will probably be over $5-10 billion, just in politician payoffs (not counting additional tens to hundreds of billions in pork barrel projects they’ll require as well on any related bills, to additionally reward their friends and donors).

Let’s face it, our current system of government is extremely corrupt, and the disconnect between politicians and the public good is only getting worse. You’ll have to change the system (start by outlawing bribery) before you’ll get any different results. What have you done to move that sort of change forward?

Political parties are simply a red herring to give us teams to root for; aside from their propaganda and marketing slogans, they’re identical. Neither party proposes to do anything about illegal immigration and the associated rampant identity and healthcare fraud which is bankrupting us. Neither party cares that 400,000 ADDITIONAL H1-B visas are issued for a term of 3 years, easily extended to 6, to legally put up to 2.4 million Americans out of work each year, simply because that foreign labor costs less.

The problem is rampant, systemic corruption, not one political party or the other. Solve the problem (campaign financing), then we can make some progress on the symptoms (including counterproductive resource allocation).

The Expert answers:

Yeah, they’re the anti-greens and always have been. Except for maybe Teddy Roosevelt.

Come November we are going to see a landslide of historic proportions.

Lets hope the Dems keep their heads and don’t blow a historic opportunity.

We subsidize everything under the sun, except for the stuff that matters. If we took subsidies away from oil, airlines, highways and agriculture and let the “free market” work, suddenly alternative energy and local economies would look very attractive.

Edit:

I wish they would have let some first graders in on the Bush-Cheney energy bill. They probably would have done a better job. Lord knows they wouldn’t let anyone else look at it.

Http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980

The Expert answers:

” means an expenditure for property which uses solar energy to generate electricity for use in a dwelling unit located in the United States and used as a residence by the taxpayer.”

You don’t own the house. While you expect to inherit it someday, it’s NOT yours.
Even if your father adds you to the title, it’s still not your principal residence, it’s theirs.

The obvious complication is that you want a tax credit you are not entitled to. Your parents don’t need the tax credit (it only reduces taxes, it doesn’t create a refundable credit).

The Expert answers:

Well cars are not so bad. No one would buy a “all eco friendly” car because it would suck or be to expensive.

The Expert answers:

There are two *very* simple ways for the US government to encourage consumers to buy eco-friendly cars:

1) Provide tax breaks for cars that achieve more than X miles per gallon of fuel economy. Conversely, place a special “gas guzzler” tax on cars that get less than Y miles per gallon. The gas guzzler tax actually already exists for cars that get ridiculously low gas mileage – like Ferraris – but it could be changed so that any car that gets less than 20 mpg is hit with an extra tax, while cars that get more than 30 mpg get a tax rebate.

2) The other easy way is simply to raise gasoline taxes. As we’ve saw in 2008, when gasoline is very expensive, people drive less and also buy more efficient cars (like the Prius). As the price of gas has dropped, so has demand for the Prius. Relative to Europe, US gas taxes (around 18 cents/gallon) are ridiculously low. According to Wikipedia, the Netherlands has a fuel tax of about $3.50 per gallon. That’s just the tax. It’s no wonder therefore that the Netherlands has some of the highest rates of bicycle usage, plus I’m sure most people who buy cars there prioritize fuel economy very highly.

Hope this helps! Reducing our dependence on foreign oil and weaning Americans from gasoline would be great for the environment, our trade balance, our national security and probably our health too!

– Aaron Dalton, Editor, http://1GreenProduct.com

The Expert answers:

Oh but they give them the warm and fuzy and feel oh so good

The Expert answers:

I have a pickup truck..i carry hay..gravel,,feed,,fencing…its 4 wd…if and when they have something affordable and as useful ill stick with what works..so for now….NO

The Expert answers:

The car you are speaking about is the Honda Clarity – it is a hydrogen / fuel cell powered vehicle. I’ve seen quotes that put its’ pre-production value at $100,000 – thus the big lease payment.

Honda is including all the hydrogen fuel in the price, which otherwise would be hard to come by. I’ve heard reports that they were considering also providing home-installed hydrogen generation equipment as part of the lease.

All these expensive prototypes would have huge price tags if offered for sale.

GM and Chevrolet are lending their hydrogen fuel cell CUV to 100 consumers for a three month “free” trial – fuel included. Likewise, the 2008 estimated purchase price would be about $100,000.

I know there are many people who have made electric or alternate fuel vehicles for prices in the $1,000’s – not $100,000. All these “conversions” require lots of hard work, some knowhow and acceptance of the compromises.

The compromises are: recharge/refuel range, speed, convenience and the obvious fact it is normally not a new car 🙂

There are some companies that are doing new car “conversions” but the final prices are at least twice the original purchase price.

Most automakers are working on EV, or Series Hybrid EV’s (where a small gas/diesel/ethanol engine recharges the batteries). The first versions of these will cost 2-3 times a gas powered car of the same size but will use much less fuel and will an impact on the environment for day-to-day use vs. Similar gas only vehicles. The Zenn, Aptera and Think! Vehicles are good examples.

By choosing to drive less or driving a home-built EV you can have the desired environmental impact and not go broke in the process. Just don’t wonder too far from a friendly wall socket.

The Expert answers:

Are deniers increasing the future price of energy by limiting investment in alternative energy companies?
Yes! British companies like Pelamis and Wavegen have been a success despite rather than because of the current investment climate. Both are backed by venture capital from Triodos Bank, an ethical bank based in de Nederlands, and both are making a good profit now, although Pelamis had to go to Portugal for their first big contract. It winds me up, we invent stuff and other people get the benefit.

Do deniers invest in alternative energy at the same rate as AGW realists?
Nope, but luckily the people that really run things are not deniers.
Http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0b1fa95c-1d5e-11df-b12e-00144feab49a.html

On a strictly financial basis, is AGW denial a net benefit to shareholders of existing alternative energy companies?
No! They are loosing out, and many sussed CEO’s are starting to realise it.
Http://www.investmentexecutive.com/client/en/News/DetailNews.asp?Id=52512&cat=30&IdSection=30&PageMem=&nbNews=&IdPub=192

And consider alternative strategies for established companies.
I heard on the radio tonight that Drax, the largest coal fired power station in Britain, is co-firing with biomass, but at a loss, because of the balance of the various grants. They have no incentive to switch to a higher proportion of biomass, which would be both more eco-friendly and give a better burn (the saving on abatement nowhere near covers the extra cost of the biofuels at the moment).

Jim, I gave you a thumbs up for ‘littlerobberbaron’. I just love it! I might start using it.
Seriously considering unblocking you for that…. Or maybe not.

The Expert answers:

A list won´t help you a lot…

You mentioned hydrogen fuel cells… That is still very far away from real competitive applications.

I think you do not only need a list but experts to advise you in which concepts to invest.

Most companies are listed in London at the AIM (alternative Investment Market)

The Expert answers:

Go to the link. It’s several hundred manufacturers and suppliers.

Links to Alternative Energy Web Sites
Updated: November 21, 2007

The Expert answers:

There is a magazine called Mother Earth News. Www.motherearthnews.com/Alternative-Energy/2005-06-01/Simpler-Solar-Power.aspx
I hope this helps

The Expert answers:

Your question is essentially one that should be taken up as a question of economics and not the nuts and bolts of “alternate fuel vehicles.”

There are several reasons. One already mentioned is that most energy companies already get subsidies. But these are larger than the obvious grants and discounts, (credits on taxes.) In economics there is a concept of “externalities.” 1 Polution is cited as a prime example of an externality. It is part of the manufacturing/refining process but the cost of polution is not figured into the end product. (health issues, the costs of clean ups and filtration.) When I go out and buy an air filter I am to some extent paying for someone’s polution. The water treatment plant is a cost that taxpayers bear for polution that has been done upstream.

To the extent that some alternative energy options do not produce externalities they are being asked to compete against an unfair advantage. Subsidies attempt to level the playing field.

There is another aspect as well. To the extent that alternative energy development is a social benefit it may be something that we should socially promote ie: subsidies.

Last, any new company will have difficulties competing with an existing company where economies of scale, and product identification 2 are already in place.

Sometimes it is difficult to put a number on some of these costs/benefits. The alternative may be to start taxing companies for the polution that they produce and eliminating any subsidies that they currently get. Undoubtedly someone would complain when an existing benefit is taken away. Business as usual is hard to change.

The Expert answers:

Ask them if their force is also renewable…

The Expert answers:

First, it’s not too late to change your major. Environmental engineering seems to be right down your alley man.

As for companies, most of them are overseas, honestly. The biggest one that comes to mind is General Electric. They’re a huge corporation that works on that kind of stuff. Look for an internship with a company like that

The Expert answers:

Yea renewable job …would be greate for mechnical and elecrical degrees

But another area to think of is environmental engineering….huge job promise in this area…for the future

The Expert answers:

The impact would be astronomical. As it is I am trying to fill in the last couple pieces to start a renewable energy (electricity, heating, etc) plant in my state (a plant that would only create a vast number of jobs for people in my state). If the government dedicated that money to scientific research and development of renewable energy our lives and ability to be “green” should only improve. However, keep in mind that technically the government doesn’t have 700 B dollars, but are borrowing it from The Federal Reserve and further increasing our national debt. However, if the invested the money in researching and developing renewable energy resources, it would create a vast number of jobs and possibly help our economy as technology and methods we discover could also be sold to other countries looking to improve their environmental and economic impact. On a personal note, I feel that the government should hold the Bank Heads financially responsible for bailing out their own banks since it was their greed that got us into this situation in the first place. Anyway, I hope I answered your question!

The Expert answers:

I’m pretty sure that a lot of solar energy companies want people who can install solar panels. There are classes at some community colleges where you can learn the details of installation and maintenance. I think it would be smart to start a company that installs solar panels.

I’m sure there is much more out there as well, good luck on your search and thank you for wanting to help grow the “green market”, that makes me happy.

The Expert answers:

I would say people between the ages of 45-60 and maybe younger smart people 20-30 years old.

The Expert answers:

There is a place that has adults, teens and baby eco-friendly products AND made of organic cotton. See http://www.squidoo.com/environmentally-green

Scroll towards the bottom.

The Expert answers:

The best would be Goodwill, because it reduces the amount of energy needed to make new clothes.

Shoes? Top companies are Blackspot (made out of a hemp and a recycled shoe tire, but expensive) and Patagonia (made by a company that does everything from preserving wildlife to supporting organic clothing, but uber-expensive.) Also Rawganique sells some Ecolution brand shoes, which are pretty good (hemp, which grows well without pesticides and blah blah blah), but I don’t know about the rest.

Cosmetics: Aveda, Burt’s Bees, Aubrey Organics, Kiss My Face, Zia, and the Body Shop are all leaders in this catagory. I’ve heard good things about Burt’s Bees, Aubrey Organics, but Aveda and the Body Shop are some of the most positive companies.

Clothing: Patagonia is again high on the list, along with American Aparell (which is a more controversial company because they’ve been accused of selling sexual ads of minors and of sexual harassment.) Maggies Organics, and No Sweat also have some eco-options.

In terms of mainstream clothing, the best companies are Levi Strauss (organic cotton jeans!) and Timberland (they just launched eco-boots and “adventure wear”).

I’m not sure about all these companies, so please check the clothing to see if it has key environmental adjectives like “organic,” “hemp,” “vegan,” or whatever other causes please you. Feel free to ask me any follow-up questions.

P.S: Fur is not environmentally friendly AT ALL.

The Expert answers:

Fresh
serene
eco-canyon
sweet earth
preserve
blossom
pure
forrest
oxygen
blush

it really depends on what type of clothes you are making: guys, girls, kids, adults, preppy, punk, classic, hippy, etc.
Add a few more details about the products you have, maybe where you are based, and you will get a lot of good responses.

Hope this helps 🙂

The Expert answers:

Try checking out the Green Business Network (http://www.greenamericatoday.org/cabn/join/?a_aid=222&a_bid=ff7c03fa), which brings together a whole bunch of environmentally and socially responsible companies. =]

The Expert answers:

“Constitution rules them” thinks the upside-down-pyramid-scheme “supply-side/deregulation” policies of the right-wing Republicans and their new toy the fiscally-illiterate teavangelists is an example of “free market,” apparently, instead of the deficit-causing, nation-destroying garbage-policy war on the middle-class that is actually the case. Add to this equation you have cited the fact that the top 1% of our nation’s wealthiest is just that—1% of our 360,000,000 population—and their often-hoarded wealth does not sustain the masses. Trickle-on-down economics simply DOES NOT WORK, folks! Hasn’t the Great Depression, the Reaganomics-caused COLLAPSE of our savings and loan industry, the FINANCIAL SYSTEM MELTDOWN preceded by the housing and credit markets’ disasterous GOP-policies-caused COLLAPSE taught the right-wing Republicans anything? They simply do not seem to learn from their mistakes…nor are they even able to admit that they make mistakes, preferring instead to project blame onto the Democrats and now onto a hard-working, nation-saving President Obama (or previous to him, President Bill Clinton)—the ones who get voted in to CLEAN UP GOP-CAUSED MESSES!

The upside-down-pyramid of deregulated bottomless-pit-greed right-wing policies balanced on the ever-decreasing middle-class cannot be sustained, which is why the ill-conceived Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires or for corporate elites needs to be eliminated—the rates need to return to the Clinton 39% rate so that we can begin to pay down our Norquist-favored deficit and get this nation balanced once again. President Obama’s DEMAND-SIDE policies and the Democrats’ reinstatement of consumer-protecting and oversight-producing regulations has successfully reversed the hardening-of-the-arteries economic downfall from GOP totalitarianism, but now we need to GROW the economy with consumer spending and increased revenues so that all Americans can benefit from the recovery for which the foundation has been laid (see whitehouse.gov and recovery.gov for details).

The Expert answers:

A great example of a sustainable community is the original Disneyland proposals by Walt Disney. He included income for residents, housing, utilities, transportation, health facilities, shopping/supplies, and community centers.

The Expert answers:

If you looking at sustainable look at The Burton Green mountain project, or Holden outerwear. Holden isn’t marketing themselves as an Eco company but they are actually one of the leaders in it. Also Helly Hansen’s EkoLab. Or Patagonia. They’ve been making eco friendly close longer than most of us have been alive.

If you’re working at Echo Park there is a chance they will require you to wear their jacket as a kind of employee uniform, so make sure that’s the case before you drop a few hundreds dollars on a new jacket, as the eco friendlier ones are also usually more costly.

I’m also going to link this guy’s blog which is specifically about environmentally aware snowboarding. Http://www.vociferousvoid.org/

The Expert answers:

You can purchase from local company by supporting them
you can purchase value pack which mean instead of 24 pack, you can buy a 2L bottle instead in order to reduce waste.
Make sure you recycle all empty bottles and cans
make sure you purchase those ones that can be recycled.

The Expert answers:

1-2% on active duty is about the maximum, more if you have poorly trained and equipped troops. Less you you have very highly trained and equipped troops like the US.

The Expert answers:

>”Should China continue to develop?”

China can do whatever it wants – and it will.

China and India both have a major advantage as we move into the future.

>”China and India graduate a combined half a million engineers and scientists a year, vs. 60,000 in the U.S. In life sciences, projects the McKinsey Global Institute, the total number of young researchers in both nations will rise by 35%, to 1.6 million by 2008. The U.S. Supply will drop by 11%, to 760,000. ”

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_34/b3948401.htm

Meanwhile, the US is racing to be the most scientifically illiterate developed nation in the world. And it is not simply a matter of honest ignorance. It is intentional ignorance based on an anti-science social / political agenda.

AGW deniers are fundamentally no different that creationists, flat-earthers, hollow-earthers, Bigfoot sleuths, birthers, and 9-11 and a host of other conspiracy freaks.

It seems unlikely that the best strategy to maintain our position in the future world is to make sure we are more stupid than everyone else, but millions of Americans (politically involved and active Americans) seem to believe that it is.

The Expert answers:

China will have to be a leader in green technology. They sure have been a leader in pollution

Time to correct flawed air pollution index

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-12/09/content_9143607.htm

these are some disturbing pictures

Amazing Pictures, Pollution in China

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/05/content_12393503.htm

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/9/18/worldupdates/2009-09-17T232633Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_-425385-1&sec=Worldupdates

pollution map

http://ditu.google.com/maps/ms?f=q&source=s_q&hl=zh-CN&geocode=&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=%E6%B8%A4%E6%B5%B7&msa=0&msid=118244671891871382452.0004763f27eca98ca1be8&ll=39.232253,94.746094&spn=58.283914,173.144531&z=3&brcurrent=3,0x358fcd4735ab4f7f:0xd93a2e2370e1b364,0;5,0,0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/6126874/China-riot-10000-villagers-clash-with-police-over-industrial-pollution.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/04/china-pollution-secrecy

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gVpKB8bQ-9TbbOGNmVXmxLcyzbiw

who even knows if any of this land will be habitable in ten years

The Expert answers:

Extinct in the world, but not in China? I don’t think that there are any such animals. Pandas do not qualify. They are indigenous to China.
Your question reeks of homework that you should do yourself.
Beasts of burden are ox and water buffalo, find your own pictures on google.
Major issues of the environment are water quality, air pollution, and soil contamination.

The Expert answers:

They can; we all can.

China has the expertise and technology (eg electric cars, carbon zero cities like Dongtan), and we will see much of it showcased at the Olympics.
China is also being badly affected by environmental degredation & climate change, eg dust storms in Bejing
They also have a centralised political system that can take unpopular decisions like population control.

However, they have bought into the capitalist measures of growth & aspiration. Western companies have invested heavily so will want their money back etc.So don’t expect then to buck the global trade system just yet.

The Expert answers:

– Dalia Lama is controlled by western countries

No.

– western countries want Tibet to free itself from china

No, some people want it to be free, others don’t care, others only want it to be free if the majority of Tibetans want it to be free.

– Tibet should always be apart of china

No, but that is for future governments to decide.

– china environmental issues are getting better

Yes there improving.

– polllution is cause by western compaines and china is not to blame

USA has some of the tightest enivormential controls in the world. China is like 40 years behind, one only has to look at the data for air pollution.

– monks attacked tibeten police first, and police had to defend themselves

Its hard to prove or disprove.

– china is not responsible for sudan or any genocide taking place

Correct the people of sudan are responsible but supplying arms or aid to one side does not make it better.

– western countries are trying to break china apart

No, some people in countries may wish for the down fall of China, just like some Chinese wish for the downfall of western countries.

– chinese news tell the truth while bbc and cnn are biased for western countries

No, Chinese will tell there version of the truth just like cnn and bbc will tell there version of the truth.

The Expert answers:

The following sites may give you the informaiton you need

www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/

environment.about.com/
www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/environmental_issues/
environment.about.com/cs/a.htm
www.grinningplanet.com/6001/environmental-issues-all.htm
www.dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Environment/

The Expert answers:

Sciencedaily

energy daily

terra daily

ScienceNews

All good free signups with loads of links

Health warning: you will see roboposted paid ads in the margins, giving you loads of Creationist cr@p or whatever else has been paid for. Do NOT confuse this with scientific content!

The Expert answers:

When I am in Tanzania next week, I will look for you.

The Expert answers:

Times of India’s website provides general, accurate, well informed, readable and critical articles about environmental issues in India and elsewhere.

The Expert answers:

Environmental issues concerning Argentina are typical of those of most developing nations: poor water and air quality, deforestation, and soil degradation. Many non-governmental and governmental agencies work towards research and policy making that address pressing threats to the preservation of Argentina’s wondrous natural landscapes, forests, and farmlands.
Http://fsdinternational.org/ntlopps/country/argentina/environment

The major environmental issues in Argentina are pollution and the loss of agricultural lands.
Http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Americas/Argentina-ENVIRONMENT.html

Argentina also faces the issue of energy consumption and management and the inefficient use of non-renewable resources.
Http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/wwf_offices/argentina/environmental_problems_argentina/

Argentina Environment – current issues
http://www.indexmundi.com/argentina/environment_current_issues.html

The Expert answers:

It doen’t really matter if there is enough oil to last us for 100 years. As you can see by the last run up of oil prices we will not be able to afford the cost of oil 100 years in the future.

We as world leaders need to migrate to renewable power sources such as solar, wind, wave, geothermal, and hydroelectric as first tier sources for the power grid.

While these are developing we will need to use clean coal to continue producing power for the grid. We have enough coal to last 400 years according to some estimates.

One of the most interesting ways to reduce the CO2 signature of the coal plants was proposed by a group at MIT. They used CO2 hungry algea to scrub out the CO2. The algae are latter harvested and oil is produced from the algae and used to produce Biodiesel. While biodiesel and diesel will be needed for sometime it has been determined that clean diesel and biodiesel are an improvement over the older diesel products. Biodiesle can also be produced from vegetable oils and waste cooking oil.

Agriculture is realing form price increases caused by the increase in using corn crops to produce ethanol for automobile fuel additives. But this chaos will only last as long as auto producers refuse to market electric cars. Hybrids are only a stop gap. Electric cars will drive more of the energy requirements to the power grid, a place were we can use renewable energy.

Then there is hydrogen power. It can be used two ways.
First hydrogen can be produced from the electrolysis of water into H2 and O2. Hydrogen is then run over a fuel cell to produce electricity and water. This system would be most effective if excess electricity produced for the grid were used to produce hydrogen. The hydrogen is then stored until needed during peak usage to keep from having to bring a coal or gas fired plants back on line.

The second way to use Hydrogen is to fuel automobiles, trucks, planes, and trains as well as powering homes and office buildings.

But I digress H2 is a topic for a later date.

We could easily intoduce massive solar and wind farms to replace coal, gas, and oil fired power plants. We could all easily be dirving electric cars if just the government, oil companies, and auto industry would cooperated and give the public the products needed to get off of fossil fuels.

The Expert answers:

Oil could run out in a short of a time as 20 years, but natural gas should last much longer. Our country has a ton of coal and natural gas, so if worst comes to worst we can always turn to them. When those run out however, we will have nuclear energy as a clear option. Ethanol, Wind, Solar, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell energy are all in their fledgling stages and haven’t yet proven that they are viable. I truly believe that our country will definitely be ready once fossil fuels cease to exist just because the plethora of options and the plethora of knowledge that scientists and other people have.

The Expert answers:

All forms of renewable/alternative energy come with their own list of pros and cons.

Windmills are great for producing energy in the plains states and coastal regions, but they are a hazard to birds.

Photovoltaic cells work well just about anywhere in the US. But if we used enough of them to provide a significant amount of our energy, we’d also be contributing to a warmer climate because of the heat being absorbed by the black surfaces of the solar panels.

Hydroelectric dams interfere with wildlife and increase the amount of water that is lost to evaporation.

One of the sources of energy that has the most promising future with regards to having minimal adverse impacts would be that derived from geothermal sources. However, geothermal energy isn’t as widely available as other sources of energy.

The answer might just be that we shouldn’t limit ourselves to any one single source of energy but rather to draw from a variety of sources.

The Expert answers:

When those methods of generating energy are no longer “alternative”, but are normal & usual…

The Expert answers:

Researchers I’ve spoken to in alternative energy seem to make more or less the same amount of money as researchers in other fields.

If you end up researching a ‘soft’ subject like geography or economics then you might be able to do some research into alternative energy – but it would be limited to studying things like its effect on society, and policies to encourage it.

Any hard science, maths or engineering will give you the grounding you need for ‘proper’ research into the technology.

Biologists can work on biofuels, chemists on biofuels and processing for things like solar panels. Engineers can work on anything and whilst a physics degree makes you particularly suited to solar power (provided you take the right modules in thermal & condensed matter/solid state physics), it gives you the tools to go into other areas too.

The Expert answers:

The internet is an amazing tool. As mentioned previously ,Union of Concerned Scientists of which I belong. Leonardo Energy, Earth Justice, Earth First, and Fixing the Planet are all good resources and chocked full of information and like minded people willing to help and educate.
At present there are many renewables vying for the front seat and only the future and research monies will tell. Bio mass looks promising if we can nail down the processing costs. Wind and solar need a shot in the arm for efficiency. Nuclear, heaven forbid as far as I’m concerned may become a player again.
There are plenty of blogs out there where a person can glean enough useful information without leaving your chair. Become part of the answer and you will learn exponentially, I guarantee it.
The US needs to heed the IPCC and make some sacrifices. The upper court system in this country is stacked with eco unfriendlies,Thanks to G.W. Which makes it very hard to win environmental cases in this day and age. I think a restructure is in order, the checks and balance system is out of balance. More research money and grants need to be slated for private individuals, to utilize and further the advancement of GREEN power.

The Expert answers:

It would likely depend on which of those energy systems you were working with.
If you generalize, and work on all of them together, you may be called a ‘Jack of all trades, master of none.’

The Expert answers:

Solar Cell – Renewable and Cleanest Energy Source:

Solar cell is a semiconductor device that converts the energy of sunlight into electric energy. These are also called ‘photovoltaic cell’. Solar cells do not use chemical reactions to produce electric power, and they have no moving parts.

Photovoltaic solar cells are thin silicon disks that convert sunlight into electricity. These disks act as energy sources for a wide variety of uses, including: calculators and other small devices; telecommunications; rooftop panels on individual houses; and for lighting, pumping, and medical refrigeration for villages in developing countries. In large arrays, which may contain many thousands of individual cells, they can function as central electric power stations analogous to nuclear, coal-, or oil-fired power plants. Arrays of solar cells are also used to power satellites; because they have no moving parts that could require service or fuels that would require replenishment, solar cells are ideal for providing power in space.

A. Most photovoltaic cells consist of a semiconductor pn junction, in which electron-hole pairs produced by absorbed radiation are separated by the internal electric field in the junction to generate a current, a voltage, or both, at the device terminals. Under open-circuit conditions (current I = 0) the terminal voltage increases with increasing light intensity, and under short-circuit conditions (voltage V = 0) the magnitude of the current increases with increasing light intensity. When the current is negative and the voltage is positive, the photovoltaic cell delivers power to the external circuit.

B. Characteristics of a Solar Cell – The usable voltage from solar cells depend on the semiconductor material. In silicon it amounts to approximately 0.5 V. Terminal voltages is only weakly dependent on light radiation, while the current intensity increases with higher luminosity. A 100 cm² silicon cell, for example, reaches a maximum current intensity of approximately 2 A when radiated by 1000 W/m². The output (product of electricity and voltage) of a solar cell is temperature dependent. Higher cell temperatures lead to lower output, and hence to lower efficiency. The level of efficiency indicates how much of the radiated quantity of light is converted into useable electrical energy.

C. Cell Types: One can distinguish three cell types according to the type of crystal: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and amorphous. To produce a monocrystalline silicon cell, absolutely pure semiconducting material is necessary. Monocrystalline rods are extracted from melted silicon and then sawed into thin plates. This production process guarantees a relatively high level of efficiency.

The production of polycrystalline cells is more cost-efficient. In this process, liquid silicon is poured into blocks that are subsequently sawed into plates. During solidification of the material, crystal structures of varying sizes are formed, at whose borders defects emerge. As a result of this crystal defect, the solar cell is less efficient.
If a silicon film is deposited on glass or another substrate material, this is a so-called amorphous or thin layer cell. The layer thickness amounts to less than 1µm (thickness of a human hair: 50-100 µm), so the production costs are lower due to the low material costs. However, the efficiency of amorphous cells is much lower than that of the other two cell types. Because of this, they are primarily used in low power equipment (watches, pocket calculators) or as facade elements.

D. Efficiency: Solar cell efficiencies vary from 6% for amorphous silicon-based solar cells to 42.8% with multiple-junction research lab cells. Solar cell energy conversion efficiencies for commercially available multicrystalline Si solar cells are around 14-16%. The highest efficiency cells have not always been the most economical — for example a 30% efficient multijunction cell based on exotic materials such as gallium arsenide or indium selenide and produced in low volume might well cost one hundred times as much as an 8% efficient amorphous silicon cell in mass production, while only delivering about four times the electrical power.
To make practical use of the solar-generated energy, the electricity is most often fed into the electricity grid using inverters (grid-connected PV systems); in stand alone systems, batteries are used to store the energy that is not needed immediately.

E. Advantages of solar energy: Solar cells are long lasting sources of energy which can be used almost anywhere. They are particularly useful where there is no national grid and also where there are no people such as remote site water pumping or in space. Solar cells provide cost effective solutions to energy problems in places where there is no mains electricity. Solar cells are also totally silent and non-polluting. As they have no moving parts they require little maintenance and have a long lifetime. Compared to other renewable sources they also possess many advantages; wind and water power rely on turbines which are noisy, expensive and liable to breaking down.

Rooftop power is a good way of supplying energy to a growing community. More cells can be added to homes and businesses as the community grows so that energy generation is in line with demand. Many large scale systems currently end up over generating to ensure that everyone has enough. Solar cells can also be installed in a distributed fashion, i.e. They don’t need large scale installations. Solar cells can easily be installed on roofs, which mean no new space is needed and each user can quietly generate their own energy.

F. Disadvantages of solar cells: The main disadvantage of solar energy is the initial cost. Most types of solar cell require large areas of land to achieve average efficiency. Air pollution and weather can also have a large effect on the efficiency of the cells. The silicon used is also very expensive and the problem of nocturnal down times means solar cells can only ever generate during the daytime. Solar energy is currently thought to cost about twice as much as traditional sources (coal, oil etc). Obviously, as fossil fuel reserves become depleted, their cost will rise until a point is reached where solar cells become an economically viable source of energy. When this occurs, massive investment will be able to further increase their efficiency and lower their cost.

For further information please refer
http://www.environmentengineering.blogspot.com

The Expert answers:

As the name suggest, it is renewable. It means that it can be used again and again but it will not last like coal and petroleum. For example, excess use of solar energy, wind energy will not reduce their stock and is always available forever.

The Expert answers:

Less than 2%