Wouldn't our energy problems be solved if we spent the money for alternative energy instead of?

Question

the TRILLIONS in IRAQ?

Answer 1

Sure!!!! If we invest money in the alternative energy such as  solar energy, we can have free energy in couple year cause we need to invest just once and after that we can enjoy that energy during 20-30 years. We can have cars on solar batteries, and make no pollution. It means less greenhouse gases and less acid rains. That will make healthy our planet and us.

But I don't think that we can do it in near future cause giant oil companies not gonna let us, they need to sell their products

Answer 2

Indeed it would, if we stopped looking for a magic bullet and went with dozens of different types of alternative energy sources. Not just wind and solar, but also geothermal, hydro, tidal and wave generators, alcohol from cellulose, fueling electric company vehicle fleets with hydrogen made with the excess power from nuke plants, thermal gradient, etc.

The best conservation move would be to rebuild the railroads. For what we've already spent in Iraq, we could have bullet trains between most major cities and fast freight nationwide. That doesn't just save oil used to fuel airliners and long range trucks. Every truck we get off the highways reduces the need for road repairs, which are also energy intensive.

The second best conservation move would be to require multifuel capability for military vehicles, with an in field production capability. This not only saves oil, but provides a major strategic advantage. Every barrel of gas that doesn't have to be shipped to the front is 480 lbs of cago capacity that can be used for something else and reduces the possibility of an offensive stalling while the tanks wait for gas.

Answer 3

NO!!!!  I hate this question.  Not meant in a bad way toward the poster.  I mean, I hate how people think that a simple shift toward "alternative energy" would be the cure-all.  Here's the real deal:

With the amount of energy that we use (just in America--we make up 5% of the world's population, but are responsible for 20% of the world's energy consumption), and with the population growing, and with China on the verge of major industrialization, and with India not too far behind (i.e. no country thus far has gone through industrialization without outputting a ridiculous amount of carbon into the atmosphere...you think the environment is going to be China's main concern?), we are looking at some grim prospects.  I'm not a doomsday kind of person.  I think, I HOPE, we will find some answers.  But, unless nuclear fusion becomes mainstream sometime in the near future (which, as I understand it, it might), we need to make some lifestyle changes!  Oh, and putting solar panels on every rooftop of America will still not displace our dependence on coal and crude oil--and what of the fossil fuel energy to MAKE all those solar panels?

Demand from your local government more public transportation, that real estate development be done responsibly, and ask for other green initiatives to be put in place.  Ralph Nader will NOT be elected president, but you can have a real impact if you try to elect a green mayor!  It won't help to think, "I just wish someone would fix our problems for us."  You gotta change your lifestyle.

Sorry, off my soapbox now....

Answer 4

I think our government is protecting the oil companies personally. You know, the all mighty dollar which isn't so mighty right now. On the local level, the only place it seems to be able to get alternative means of energy is in CA. I would be willing to invest in alternative energy, but, it's just not available where I am, and since it's so new, it is completely unaffordable to the average person.

Answer 5

We sound pretty foolish speaking of expensive alternative energy but tolerating jillions of dollars spent and thousand of lives lost or harmed in our most recent wars. While we send our engineers and scientists to war, the rest of the world is using their scientific community to beat us to death regarding alternative energy. Even some oil producing countires are ahead of us. OK, California can match many other countries but the rest of us ... geez ... it is embarassing and worse ... it is setting us backward.

Our energy requirements are enormous and since the rest of world is beginning to use energy as stupidly as we have, we need to make a war like effort to start solving the problem. I believe we can solve it but we have to start getting expert opinions on the current status of each system and also start thinking "out of the box."

For example, I drive past several huge shopping malls that have been abandonded. Why not make them mini-power plants with solar panels producing electricity and send it directly to the nearby grid?

I hear folks state that we don't have enough agricultural land to produce fermentable plants but I also drive by miles and miles of completely unused land. Sugar beets or switch grass could be grown there, processed and fermented in local factories.

Every new federal, state, and university building should use the latest conservation technology and have solar panels on every building the exceeds three stories tall. Again, run the power directly to the grid.

Every high tension electrical power line generally has a hundred yards or more on both sides of the towers. Why not place solar panels on this land and again, run it directly to the grid.

Personally, I would invest my money into a mutual fund that bought masses of solar panels and wind systems and installed them where they were deemed appropriate by experts and then I'd take my dividend year after year after year. In between 5-15 years those panels would be paid off and my dividend would go up.

Sure I am a dreamer and probably it is easy to tear these ideas to pieces but hey ... where is everyone else's better ideas and how can we get them done? It is easy to say we want to be energy independent but I think it is safe to say that it will not happen if we rely on the old ways. It is really hard to get truly honest, unbiased and still trustworthy information on energy.

Some very large corporations are now going solar in a big way. If it is such an expensive system, why is Google covering their roof with solar panels and opting for plug -in hybrid vehicles? There are many more. Do a google search for "google green." Then raise your voice to the heavens and spread the word.

Answer 6

Bush is an oil producer. He will do anything in his power to keep that going. I am actually reading a book for my Environmental Impact Analysis class thats called Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush & His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country & Hijacking our Democracy. It basically tells about how all of our head environmental agencies are being run by former or current industry heads. The head person for our Forestry program is run by an industry man. Which is the reasoning for Bushes "healthy forest" act. Its just a way to get timber out of our forests, and hes using his corporate buddies to do it.

Answer 7

No.  We have no practical alternative yet.  The best we can do so far is reducing our usage by being personally less wasteful and employing things like hybrid cars, nuclear power plants, etc.

Things like wind and solar power generation can, where wind and sun are strong and steady enough, augment traditional power sources; but they are neither productive nor efficient enough to be large-scale primary sources and may never be so.  Wave power is even less likely to be useful in all but rare cases.

Alcohol takes too much energy to produce and gives back less than fossil fuels.  It is not practical as primary fuel except where biomass is plentiful and can be used as both the ingredient and the fuel for the distillation process.  The latter process, however, produces a lot of pollution.

There is some hope for hydrogen fuel.  One problem is bulk.  The other is producing it consumes a large amount of energy.  We must add energy to it in order to bring it up to a condition where it will return some.  That reduces, or eliminates, the net value of the return.  The only practical way today is to use great amounts of clean nuclear power generation to electrolyze hydrogen.  Oxygen is also produced and selling that can offset some cost.

There are also, I believe, some other byproducts.  I suspect the value of any bringing a return might be more than offset by other costs.  All in all, the whole process may be a net loss.

It's hard to beat fossil fuels for energy return because the energy is already stored in them.  We just refine them and start them burning to get it.

Nuclear fuel is similar.  We refine it and stick it together in a concentration appropriate for our purpose and it puts out energy accordingly.  It too already has the energy available.

Answer 8

Everyone seems to forget, and they get mad when I remind them, that in 1980 the very first thing that Ronald Reagan did as president was to do away with the alternative fuel act of 1976. If he had not done this (even though they knew of the coming consequences in then next few decades) we would not be in this mess we are in today, and we would be ahead of Europe in the amount of alternative energy we produce and technology used to produce it.  As it is now, it is European companies that are coming the the US and building alternative energy infrastructure.

Answer 9

Let's hope things change with the new administration...if we are still around by then!

Answer 10

Sure the money would help a lot to change the energy landscape.  We would have a decent push for methane as a fuel for both vehicles and electricity generation and a better production system for ethanol to help reduce the amount of gasoline required in the country.

But that is not the reason for the fight over there.  It is to reduce the terrorists bases and funding.  Well so they say.  Unfortunately that is the way it is and so we struggle to get a handle on alternative fuels and methods of production.

Until fuel hits even higher levels of near $4.50 a US gal andthe populace starts buying smaller fuel efficient buggies, nothing will be done to accelerate the alternative fuels problem.  So far only of fuel economy and additives has had any impact on vehicle and fuel manufacturers.

Answer 11

No.  There is no viable alternative to petroleum as out primary fuel.  Throwing more money at this will not change the facts.

Answer 12

maybe not solved, but at least helped... likewise using some of those trillions to help the homeless and poor at home instead of lending so much to other countries would be a better plan of action

(in my opinion) the government has its priorities totally messed up, and don't even get me started on their yearly salaries and perks, in the US and here in Canada ...

.. then again - this is 'government' we're talking about .. that about says it all in my books.

Answer 13

That is what I ask myself everyday. The technology is already there, E100 is 100% based on corn. Our cars can be retrofitted to work on this fuel. If the United States just made it a law to

1. Have every gas station carry E100

2. Force car dealers to honor warranties even if cars are retrofitted for E100.

3. The production of E100 HAS TO BE goverment controlled, non profit, If we let companes control this prices are going up anyway.

4. Prohibit any part of the fuel production process to go overseas.

5. Make every State have it's own processing plant, this will open up jobs and lower prices and can even let the USA be the Fuel production leader, and even sell it's product to the world.

This not only takes our dependency on terrorist countries away, It will stabilize our economy.