Lizzie asks…
Is the notion of alternative energy being economically viable wishing thinking?
Skeptics have always maintained that if alternative energy was viable in a free market economy, they would already be in use. Proponents of global warming have always criticized skeptics as being stupid, uniformed and uneducated for maintaining this position and that alternative energy was indeed viable.
It turns out shell oil has backed out of the alternative energy investments saying it is economically a poor investment.
“Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today… The company said that many alternative technologies did not offer attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell’s executive director of gas and power, said: “If there aren’t investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won’t put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy
The Expert answers:
Alternative energy is available now, however it’s the believers that are stopping this technology from being put into place.
Nuclear Power can provide the US with almost all our power needs. However environmentalists are scared about transporting waste, even though the waste is very small and transported every day.
Another excuse is the cost which is only higher because environmnetalists sue Nuclear power plants to prevent them from operating causing prices to rise. Truthfully, they are just scared of modern technology they don’t understand.
By switching to nuclear, we could reduce the green house gas output of the US by 50%.
Charles asks…
How efficient are fossil fuels compared to alternative energy sources?
By alternative energy sources I mean things like solar, wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, etc. I want to see how efficient they are, not really paying attention to how polluting they are.
The Expert answers:
You can’t make a meaningful comparison that way.
A coal plant, for example, may have 30% thermal efficiency. The coal it burns, though, comes from plants that had only about a 2% efficiency in turning sunlight into biomass. A nuclear plant using the same steam technology as a coal-fired plant has about the same thermal efficiency, but involves far less fuel – indeed, some nuclear plants make more fuel than they use.
Thin-film solar panels are only about 1/5 as efficient, area for area, as standard silicon solar panels, but cost about 1/10 as much. Either panel has far higher overall efficiency than a coal-fired plant, but involves manufacturing costs that makes their electricity more expensive if subsidiary costs (like adverse health effects) are neglected.
Relative availability of energy is also an issue. Solar and wind aren’t always available. A hydroelectric dam becomes useless if the river feeding its reservoir dries up.
The wiki article referenced discusses relative costs of electricity produced by various methods.
Daniel asks…
What alternative energy sources would you recommend for Third world countries?
What alternative energy sources would you recommend for Third world countries to acquire instead of nuclear technology?
The Expert answers:
It depends on region and climate of country. For example, geothermal energy – in regions with high volcanic activity. Solar energy – for countries with enough amount of sunny days. Energy of sea waves, wind, tides etc. For example, technical potential of solar energy in Russia (2.3 mlrd t of relative fuel per year) is approximately in 2 times higher than present consumption of fuel.
Donna asks…
What alternative energy ETFs should I buy?
I’m not confident with my abilities to invest in individual stocks and thought an ETF would be a good option. Would an alternative energy ETF be a good investment now? Any recommendations for which ones? Thanks.
The Expert answers:
Here is a list of all alternative energy ETFs with some description of each.
Http://etf.stock-encyclopedia.com/category/alternative-energy.html
But I’m not so sure that alternative energy investments would bring good profits. Alternative energy might help the economy in general by keeping energy costs down and decreasing pollution. But in terms of making profits, I don’t see it as a big money-maker.
In most cases, it’s cheaper to extract oil and gas from the ground than to produce alternative energy. And even when the oil runs out, every country and every company will be free to get into the alternative energy business. And when there is a lot of competition. Then profit margins are unlikely to be high.
Robert asks…
What are some disadvantages to being an alternative energy researcher? Or, why wouldn’t you want to be one?
I’m doing a career research project on alternative energy researchers, and I need help finding information about a “critical issue,” or disadvantage, of being in the career. Any ideas?
The Expert answers:
In less you are in collage now by the time you graduate the job market and technology will be on to something else.
As they say there is only jobs and money in an idea or technology as long as the research has not caught up with the product.
Once the product is developed the money and research funds go out of it and it becomes an item on the shelf.
Once it becomes an item on the shelf the value goes away, the money and the job.
In your first year of collage take you core science classes and try and figure out what is your passion.
Once you find your passion follow it in all earnest and your success and feeling of fulfillment will come out of it.
Don’t pursue the job, pursue your intereststs you have to remember it is what you want to do for the rest of your life.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers