[TEMPLATE]Renewable Energy[/TEMPLATE]
[TEMPLATE]Equipment & Tools[/TEMPLATE]
[TEMPLATE]home improvement store[/TEMPLATE]
There's No Magic Solution: 6 Cons of Renewable Energy
Author: Shirlyn Dee
Going green is not an overnight make over session with your favorite stylist. It takes money, sweat, and patience to have a fully converted eco friendly home. There are seven points to remember before joining mother earth's campaign.
1. Eco Friendly is not Consumer Friendly
Sure the trend has been set and many companies have joined in the fad but those true blue advocates have money to burn in their pockets. Solar panels or wind mills are not easy on the wallet. A solar panel costs a hefty sum; consider buying four or five of them to cut down your electricity bill by a half. Not to mention that these technology is not widely available elsewhere.
They have to be specially ordered and professionally installed to be fully functional. It may be beneficial in two or three year's time but at the start it's just all bills and no gain.
2. High maintenance gadgetry may hurt the wallet's feelings
It may sound rough but truth hurts. Unlike automobiles which can be maintained by good old dad, these gadgets must be maintained by a professional to be able too meet maximum potential and satisfactory performance.
3. With renewable energy, Mother Nature is in control
Complete dependency to renewable energy may seem bleak at the moment especially with the extreme climate change that the world is experiencing. On the contrary, severe climate changes were caused by pollution and global warming. The people are just reaping what they sow.
4. Sources of Renewable energy depend on geographic location
As the old saying goes, "we can't win 'em all" panels and mills need to be situated in a location wherein there is abundance of the resource. It's a no- brainer to say that hydroelectric mills shouldn't be installed in the desert.
5. Renewable sometimes means more pollution
Some sources stinks, literally! Biomass is one of the most abundant renewable resources on the planet and it would be a waste not to use it to produce millions of wattage of power. However, large scale harvesting of biomass need a facility far away from towns and villages for security reasons. Another is that biomass contributes to pollution and global warming with the emission of greenhouse gases released by the waste products.
6. More renewable energy needs more time
The fore fathers of modern technology depended on oil and coal thinking that it would be available forever for future consumption not knowing that a huge energy crisis would hit the people straight in the eye. To be able to see dramatic changes in the community it would take at least a century to fully dispose of everything that is non-eco friendly or at least half of it.
Renewable energy cannot emmidiately fully sustain the growing world's needs. Sure there is nuclear energy but the use of it is still debatable. Unlike wind, solar, hydroelectric, or geothermal, nuclear has more cons to human life as to it being useful. It does cut down electricity and energy consumption. It takes a lot of trouble, and the main question, will renewable energy really save the world?
Article Source: http://www.articlesbase.com/internet-marketing-articles/theres-no-magic-solution-6-cons-of-renewable-energy-897091.html
About the Author
Shirlyn Dee is a co-owner of Keen Partnerships, a pioneer renewable energy marketing company. Keen Partnerships acknowledge the fact that the renewable energy company startups need due exposure, and has the resources and manpower to give quality Internet marketing services for renewable energy players.
She has successfully deployed sites, and has been in the "Internet Marketing" industry for 4 years now. Now her expertise is mostly focused in deploying sites for Keen Partnerships clients, whose businesses are often in the renewability and sustainability field.
[TEMPLATE]amazon search[/TEMPLATE]
To hell with renewable energy, we are a tiny island our contribution to saving the planet is zilch. I wish our “green” friends would expend their energies castigating China. Ah but China would just ignore them or chuck them in the clink. Bullies always target a soft touch. We don’t really need more hospitals, we just need to get rid of all the managers, PFI and wastage, then they will be much more efficient. We don’t really need more police, we just need them to do the job they are paid for instead of sitting behind a desk meeting pathetic government targets. We do not need more teachers, stop mass immigration and they would not be overwhelmed by pupils who cannot speak English. Give back their authority and they would not be wasting valuable learning time in trying to control the class yobs. Our troops should not be fighting in these conflicts, bring them home. I suppose my message is, that it is not about money but about doing what is right. If I ran the country I would have saved the money and used it to pay off some of our massive debts, thereby benefitting us all. .
Try to find a way to heat water using sunlight instead of the hot water heater. Showers some people use in camping, for example, have metallic bags to collect sunlight and heat water, you might be able to try something like that on a large scale.
The biggest carbon footprint is going to be in heating and cooling. Do without A/C in the warm months. Close the school in the winter and go during the summer to avoid heating the building. In the cooler times, like spring and fall, dress warm enough to do without turning the heat on. As long as you keep that A/C and heat off, you will go a huge way toward being carbon neutral.
Try physics to show how stupid the corbin foot print.The CO2is all recycled so there is nothing lost.
Great idea, it’s time to wage a major effort to seek other sources of energy and ween ourselves from fossil fuels. Also time to stop kissing the back sides of these countries that keep us at bay with oil…
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).
do you think its time for a Manhattan type project is done concerning solar power or other renewable energy?
that is a goverment type group to find a real solution to the energy crisis, i dont believe in global warming, but i think everybody can agree some day there will be no oil,
we developed the abomb in a few years doing it that way
fund it till they get a efficant way of energy and then make it a public trust type deal anyone can use it and devolope it further
the queston should be this but i hit enter to quick after changing it abit, lol i always run out of spaces asking my original form of question
do you think its time for a Manhattan type project concerning solar power or other renewable energy?
its not so much dreaming as trying to put though into action, and then spreading the word.
although dreaming helps also
i did not know that about kerry, but i was out of the country for 2 years at the time good for him, i think it needs to be about energy solutions though, that has a quantifiable result, where as global warming im my opinion isnt about finding a source but would end up being solutions put into law and i dont agree with what would come from that
UK Citizens choice: 50 new hospitals; 100,000 extra Police; or huge investment in renewable energy?
You could have had 50 state of the art hospitals.
Or maybe 100,000 extra Police Officers in our cities, towns and villages.
An extra 100,000 teachers to teach in smaller groups.
A massive investment in renewable energy that would have achieved the 2020 targets; imoroved the environment; and softened the blow of rising energy prices.
Instead – the money got spent on sending troops and equipment to Iraq and Afghanistan.
But how would you have spent the money?
Yes Sam – they do have excellent health facilities in Germany. And they’re way ahead in renewable energy. But then they don’t have 2 wars to pay for.
Hey Sandisk – you could have 50,000 police instead and invest £6000 million in renewable energy.
Absolutely Bamford. And not forgetting all the people killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Divasue. Oh yes. Again that’s what they’ve done in Germany. So many people generate their own electricity and sell their surplus back into the National Grid. Such a good idea.
What are some Renewable Energy Sources?
a group of kids from my school (including me) want to make our school carbon neutral and for the project we want to put solar panels and wind turbines (not the huge ones) on our school what are some other Renewable Energy Sources?
Thanks in advance
renewable energy commercials?
i’ve seen a series of commercials by a group promoting green energy and environmental interests, they featured a little girl, one time at a pond, talking about wind energy i believe, one time at the beach talking about solar energy, and the third one i don’t remember. I’m currently student teaching a 4th grade class, and i think that these commercials would really help open childrens eyes to simple things that can be done to save the earth. the company had a website that the commercials were viewable on, but i cannot remember it. any ideas what i’m talking about?
Fossil fuel subsidies 12 times more than renewable energy subsidies – what’s wrong with this picture?
“Governments last year gave $43 billion to $46 billion of support to renewable energy through tax credits, guaranteed electricity prices known as feed-in tariffs and alternative energy credits, the London-based research group said today in a statement. That compares with the $557 billion that the International Energy Agency last month said was spent to subsidize fossil fuels in 2008.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-07-29/fossil-fuel-subsidies-are-12-times-support-for-renewables-study-shows.html
So aside from the fact that fossil fuels are artificially cheap as we don’t pay for the externalities (global warming, ocean acidification, etc.), on top of that they also get 12 times more subsidies than renewable energy.
And yet conservatives oppose putting a price on carbon emissions. What’s wrong with this picture?
Carson, you are simply wrong.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6103RM20100201