James asks…
Degree in Renewable energy?
I am interested in saving the world‘s problems and it’s addiction to big oil..lol
There are few colleges that offer a degree in renewable energy, but I am not sure if I should go for a specific degree like that. How about studying Bachelor’s in chemical engineering or Biotechnology and then studying masters in renewable energy?
Any ideas are welcome.
Thanks
The Expert answers:
I just hate chemistry.
Susan asks…
Renewable Energy Question?
Please share your thoughts in detail to help me?
cold fusion has been belittled, ridiculed and basically dismissed by the scientific community since 1989 when Fleischmann and Pons “jumped the gun” during a press conference. There is evidence that cold fusion is within reach of becoming a viable option as a renewable energy source, and that it would basically change the world economy. Check out the following article:
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/may/30/evidence-favoring-cold-fusion-as-energy-source/
The Expert answers:
The scientific community is shy on this because of the history of what some said was fraud. Teams of scientists will work on this, but my bet is that there is not enough evidence for a reasonable person to accept that the affect (effect?) has been shown.
Laura asks…
Can you believe how much energy we waste?
I’m in the middle of a project for college here. Some interesting facts: Oil production peaked in the mid seventies, natural gas production will peak in 2020, the most efficient engine we use at the moment is the diesel engine which is approx 40% efficient for the fuel put in to the work done. Renewable energy (solar, wind, tidal, etc) still only accounts for a tiny percentage of the energy we use! We are totally screwed! We still breed like rabbits and still don’t treat the world responsibly! At this rate the world will be out of resources within 100 years, by then we’ll HAVE to use renewable sources of energy but the pollutants that will exist then will have completely b*ggered up the planet! Any thoughts?
Jeez Kev, that’s a bit harsh, not getting any? In fact they reckon the population will increase and hold at approximately 10 billion by 2050. We are indeed using more oil than ever but the overall number of SOURCES of oil has not been increasing since the seventies. Read the question and don’t make assumptions. Live and let live. And lose the superior attitude.
The Expert answers:
Hey T M Good Question.
Have a look at [Link 1] I think it will help flesh out your project.
Focusing in on the population curve: have you wondered why it’s shown to flatten out (sigmoid growth)? And more importantly do you believe that it will simply flatten out? [Link 2 & 3]
I think we’re in for a bit of boom and bust regards global population levels. Declining fertility rates (not contraception) and lack of access to basic requirements (clean food and water) will eventually mean that the population will reach equilibrium – a starvation equilibrium. But declinig natural resources, shifting enironmental conditions, competition for scarsening resources and habitable areas (leading to wars – and we’ve seen that in Iraq already) combined with the environmental impact of global warming; put all this together and I recon we’re headed for a population crash.
Best wishes LT
PS: Making statements that could possibly be construded as acknowledging the bleeding obvious, namely that we are trashing the planet big time and that we are, for example responsible for global warming – is a rather contentious area and as you have seen with at least one respondent, likely to lead to a ‘naysyaer’ back lash. Don’t be put off – you’re spot on with your observations – and remember the debate on environmental issue has now moved on – the debate is OVER, we are screwing up the environment and behaving irresponsibly, that’s now the offical position. However, for some people no matter how much evidence is brought forward, no matter how bad the weather gets or how many species go extinct, no matter how many people starve to death or are displaced from their homes due to rising sea levels or drought or other climatic changes, they’ll never believe that it’s us to blame – that’s because they have alterior motives (namely vested self interest, greed and/or stupidity) which are over riding their morals (assuming they have any) and common sense (again assuming they have any).
Ruth asks…
Will civilized countries develop renewable energy sources…”?
voluntarily to avoid world bankruptcy and famine, or will we wait until there is no more oil and we experience the resulting devastation and ultimate total world war?
yasiru89 – I agree with your first statement. I was very surprised when YA directed my question to philosophy. I don’t know what triggered the category choice.
The Expert answers:
This doesn’t belong in philosophy. However I shall afford an opinion in any case.
Civilised nations, or more relavantly countries with most influence (say G8) will probably push towards the very last minute without much going for long term solutions. Since change is not easily given initiative granted that something already works even when that is threatened.
We would indeed be heading towards some great economic discomfort in this sense and the rise from such will mainly involve short term plans.
Carol asks…
Would renewable energy sources be enough to cover for nuclear power?
Ok, brace yourselves, this is for a debate that we’re doing at school and I’m the lead debater. The affirmative side is “nuclear power SHOULD be used in the modern world.” The negative side is “shouldn’t”.
My question is only because the negative side might ask us about this and stump us, and I wanna be ready with all the answers.
So, say we started using nuclear power more around the world. And we don’t have to worry about waste storage facilities, either, since we supposedly found a solution to that. But then, this guy comes along and tells us that we could be using renewable energy sources, like wind or solar power instead of the nuclear power we’re now using all over the world. And suppose we actually started doing that.
Would renewable energy sources be able to produce the same amount of energy that nuclear power was?
Oh god, that is so crucial. Simple answers are fine, but I would appreciate any help on the debate itself – I’m actually working on my speech right now. I need things that we can say to drown out the negative team’s theories and ideas. We need to defeat them good.
mark, I really don’t get what you’re saying.
The Expert answers:
Simple if we plant to many wind turbines etc than we can sure outrun nuclear power as on earth tap able energy from renewable sources is more than our need but presently we have not cost effective method new research are in phase hope so soon we get result
Powered by Yahoo! Answers