Mandy asks…
In your opinion, what is the most interesting idea/part related to new energy forms?
I need to write an essay regarding renewable energy OR the impact our current form of energy is having on the world. IDEAS PLEASE!
The Expert answers:
Perhaps look into cold fusion
Robert asks…
Questions on science, renewable/green energy and vehicles?
If the cheapest and easiest way to get hydrogen is from natural gas, and natural gas is non renewable, how are hydrogen cars good for the environment?
I read that the other ways to produce hydrogen are gasifying coal (which is basically burning coal), using electrolysis, and biomass (doesn’t make enough hydrogen).
Does electrolysis get rid of the water forever, can it be converted into water again? If it can’t, could widespread use of electrolysis to create hydrogen for cars, damage the world‘s water supply.
The Expert answers:
Natural gas is currently much more plentiful than petroleum. It’s already piped throughout the civilized world. The hydrogen from coal gasification comes from the water used in the process. The car itself emits practically no pollutants.
If you are using a ‘green’ or renewable energy source (photovoltaic, fission, wind etc.) to electrolyze water, you are simply converting that electric energy into the chemical energy of the broken HO bonds of the water. That’s mainly a way of making the energy transportable to a vehicle. Time will tell whether that’s more efficient or practical than simply making an electric car, especially one roofed with photovoltaic cells.
You recover the chemical energy from the hydrogen by combustion (often via a fuel cell). The energy is released as the hydrogen recombines with oxygen to form water. Thus, no net change to earth’s water supply.
Richard asks…
Who else thinks that all the immaturity and greed among utility companies will serve to promote green energy?
The more big, wealthy gas and oil companies make their services a nuisance with disruptions and price hikes the more the world will turn to alternative supplies of clean, abundant, renewable energy. They are bringing about their own demise with their retarded thinking. Good! Keep it up you shits!
The Expert answers:
There is no evil per se in the energy business. The problem is, profit and loss alone drives things the way they are, and the environmental costs are, at present. External to the energy companies’ balance sheets, so they have an economic incentive to damage the environment, which historically they have done. Anything that is free gets overused by profit-motivated enterprises, including any environmental resource (air, dump sites, extraction sites, etc.) Utility companies are highly regulated at the State level, and the regulatory bodies are often elected, so the power of the ballot box can be used to get them in line. “Energy companies” (oil, coal, and gas producers) respond primarily to market conditions (collectively, all of us who buy energy) and to regulation (which they fight in the political arena because compliance costs money.)
Energy law must be national or international to be effective, and we, humanity, have barely gotten to the State and Province level for putting these externalities back on the company balance sheets. Furthermore, regulations must be administered by civil servants, so all that elected officials need to do to protect the status quo is to fund too few and appoint managers who are pro-industry.
Green energy will be embraced by the private sector when there is a competitive amount of money to be made in it. In the meantime, individuals can promote legislation that makes the externalities internal, so that green is more profitable, and can take advantage of existing rules that allow homeowners to generate their own power and requires utility companies to buy it.
Demonizing the opposition does not facilitate a solution. In the end, it is what is done, not what is intended, that matters.
David asks…
What is the best renewable energy source to replace fossil fuel use?
As you may be aware, burning fossil fuels is sadly still our primary means of obtaining energy on this planet. However, it is clear that we MUST NOT continue on this path or else humanity will face incomprehensible doom.
So, I’d like to know:
Which energy source, in your opinion, would be the most promising for us, as a species, in order to ensure our long-term energy needs are met?? Please provide your reasoning for how it is the best solution for humanity.
For example, I personally see the greatest potential in “Space-Based Solar Power”. Unlike trying to capture solar energy from on the earth’s surface, which is generally not sufficient enough to compete with other alternative energy sources, capturing energy from space is abundant far beyond necessity. In fact, the energy available from space is EASILY abundant enough to power the world if we implement a space-based system on a wide scale. Yet, it will certainly cost money and effort to get the panels up and implement the energy around the world. Yet, I still see this as the most promising solution of any I’ve considered for meeting humanity’s long-term energy needs and, likewise, our species’ survival.
What solution do you propose?? Why??
Thanks in advance!
The Expert answers:
You don’t speak of one fossil fuel, but all of them. Same is true for renewable energy; we will use all of them combined in their best locations.
Space based solar will not be produced on earth, it costs too much to move the equipment up there. We aren’t planning to return to the moon for at least a decade, so sometime after that before we even start on such a grand project even if it is worthy of our effort.
Lisa asks…
U.S. spends $1.5 billion on developing renewable energy; this enough considering Exxon makes $1 billion a day?
The numbers are right. Taken from both the OMB and Exxon itself. I find it very troubling, considering that oil will most likely cease to be a resource in another 40-50 years.
Shouldn’t we be spending a staggering more on renewable energy so we can be among the world‘s leaders?
Klye, I see your point and thought about that before posting. This Exxon revenue will vanish. I think we should push the taxes higher on oil, regulate pricing and use the oil sector’s tax returns to stimulate energy growth / development in a wide range of smart areas.
Klye, I see your point and thought about that before posting. This Exxon revenue will vanish. I think we should push the taxes higher on oil, regulate pricing and use the oil sector’s tax returns to stimulate energy growth / development in a wide range of smart areas.
$1 billion a day is obscene.
The Expert answers:
Considering the government gets over 400 billion a year to play with, yes they might as well be giving 50 cents to fund reneweable energy.
Instead, they actually want to spend less and even NONE on any sort of alternative. They’re just too fixated on keeping oil in the system until every last drop is used up. They care about money more than anything.
It’s actually destroying our country by going out of our way to stay on oil. How many new jobs would be created by alternative energy, there’s be no wars, and the economy would soar
Powered by Yahoo! Answers