Lets just say that humans do not contribute to Global Warming in any significant way at all.?
Would it still be such a terrible idea to agree with the Kyoto protocol and reduce pollution as much as possible? Or to convert to renewable energies as much as possible?
Lets just say that you are adamantly against the idea of Global Warming. If you could vote for this idea that follows would you?
Idea- In the U.S., we will place solar panels in our major deserts. We will place solar panels on the roofs of our houses. Every home will have its own windmill generator. A back up battery system will be installed that can run for hours if not days in the case of loss of sun and wind or bar some event. Only will electricity be shipped into your home if you cannot provide it from a renewable source. Electric companies will no longer be ran for a profit, they can only be Co-ops. Every car will be 100% electric and will plug directly into a wall socket into your 100% renewable energy home.
For or against? sorry so long
For Zen Jesus...This study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) conclusively demonstrates that energy payback for photovoltaic (PV) power is, in the worst case, less than 4 years. Given that PV module lifetimes are generally in excess of 20 years, a PV system will produce far more energy than it consumes over its lifetime.
Solar PV technologies have declined in price every year since they were introduced onto the market, driven by improved research and development, and most of all by steady increases in sales volume. (In 1954, approximately one watt of PV generating devices was manufactured. In 2004, approximately one billion watts will be manufactured worldwide.)
So just with solar panels they would pay for themselves. Add a windmill and rollback meters and in no time you would actually be making a profit off of having renewable technologies.
Monthly average residential consumption of electricity in the United States in 1999 was 866 kilowatt hours. (Source: US DOE) So let's just say 10,392 p/y.
A 1 kilowatt peak Solar System will generate around 1,600 kilowatt hours per year in a sunny climate per 100 sq feet. For a "standard" system of 216 SUNSLATES you will use about 300 square feet of space on your roof. So 4,800 p/y.
The annual average wind mph where I live is 12, with a skystream 3.7 that would generate an estimated 400 kWhs per month. So 4,800 p/y.
So 10,932 - 9,600 = 1332 average consumer payment of kilowatt hours with both systems.
A Solar Energy System can provide electricity 24 hours a day. The solar electric modules are combined with batteries in one integrated energy system.
A little history of renewable energy...
The first cars in America back in the 1880s 1890s
The New York Times, September 15, 1912:...a combination of gasoline engine, generator, and storage batteries by which, for a modest expense, every man can make his own electricity in his own cellar...
In 1913, Edison had announced the result of some 50,000 experiments conducted during seven painstaking years--a radical new energy self-sufficient home. Every device and system, basement to roof, was powered by batteries replenished continuously by a small-scale on-site household electrical generator.
Edison and Ford began to mass produce electric cars in 1914, "We have an order from the Ford Auto Co for about 4 million dollars worth of battery per year. They build next year 150,000 autos." Edison-powered electric vehicles would sell as cheaply as $500 to $700. the entire car will weigh but 1,100 pounds.
It will run for 100 miles [without recharge]
"I have produced an energy system that will power the whole world for mere cents." Nikola Tesla. To which Westinghouse replied, "That's fine but where do I put the meter?"
A huge state by state list of rebates for wind and solar http://www.dsireusa.org/
On February 17, 2009 President Obama signed the American Recovery and Re-investment Act of 2009 into law. The bill improves upon the 2008 tax credit, by removing “cost caps.” This change allows consumers and small businesses to take a 30% tax credit off the installed cost of a wind turbine.
So the point I am trying to make is that these systems have been available for years and have been purposefully ignored. If they would have been continuously worked on they would be cheap and affordable by now. The step to mainstream these things needs to be done as soon as possible.
- haans42Lv 51 decade agoFavorite Answer
There are many good reasons other than global warming to switch to alternative sources of energy so I agree with most of your proposition.
First: we are in a condition called peak oil and anything that can be done to reduce demand for oil and natural gas, has several benefits. It keeps the finite supply of that resource available at a reasonable cost. And improving efficiencies improves productivity and has an economic benefit.
Second: Electricity generated from coal has many problems other than just carbon emissions. From environmental damage done during mining, to fine particulates, to radon gas and mercury emissions, to the fly ash disposal problem. Coal is just something we would be better off not burning.
I am not so certain I like the idea of the back up battery systems. I prefer that electricity on the grid come from sources that do not pollute like nuclear, wind and solar. Batteries are expensive, bulky, and are have a finite life.
I think we should look for other ways to reduce pollution in other areas like transportation. Improving efficiency always has more economic benefit than it does harm. Using less to do more is called improving productivity and is an engine of economic growth.
I feel rampant consumerism does not improve our standard of living.The pursuit of more stuff means we have less time for family and community. Technology and automation are wonderful. But why is it we now have less free time in spite of it? We work longer hours and are more socially isolated. Why?
With improved efficiencies, and by doing more with less, we would have more time, and more money. Perhaps some of us would choose to spend that time and money in less selfish ways. That would have tremendous benefit to for all of us.
- Nata TLv 61 decade ago
Your facts on NREL flies 180 degrees from reality. Without subsidies, PV panel are a 30 year payout. PV panels cost have decreased down to the materials cost. If we can get the cost of the panels down to $1/watt from present $3, the installed costs will drop from $8 to $6, so the biased news says a 66% reduction in cost when in reality its, 25%, still not enough to make PV a profitable venture (or not double the cost of electricity YOU mill pay).
Presently, there isn't enough home based energy putting power back onto the grids to worry about, but, the utilities are prepared for an overload of such power. Here is what our power company has approved from the state:
For home power systems the owner will have 2 choices they can 1) pay a power storage fee or 2) sell the power back to the power company at it's lowest rate they buy from coal plants, then buy it back a normal retail. In either case, you will have to nominate your energy use and production, if you miss you estimates by more than 10%, you will be subject to added fees and penalties.Source(s): FERC 636
- Anonymous1 decade ago
If I lived in Ca I would generate 100% of my power and be off grid between stat and federal tax credits you can almost get the system for free.
I generate 8k watts of power and I spent 15k to do it and that was with me installing it if I would have paid some one it would be twice that. I do net metering so I pay for power at night if I don’t generate enough in the day.
If it wasn’t for the fed tax credit and being able to install it my self I would not have done it. It’s going to take almost 10 years for it to pay for its self.
I would have rather had a wind turbine but not enough wind ware I live to make it worth while but if I ever get out of town Ill put one up.
I went to solar so the wife wouldn’t complain about the power bill from my salt water aquarium.
As for electric cars I wont get one until they can build one with some style there is no way Ill ever drive one of the egg shaped cars they have now. I would get a tesla but I have 2 kids so I need
- 4 years ago
This became over 60 years in the past. that's April in Canada, and we are nonetheless freezing up right here. there is not any such factor as worldwide Warming. that's a scam of sizeable proportions, little doubt out of your question, evidently to point it particularly is actuality, yet there are hundreds of scientists that say it is not any longer authentic. WW2 did no longer initiate something yet a international grew to become the opposite direction up brought about by making use of a few evil adult men. As for wildfires, they are began regularly by making use of nature. that's natures way of cleansing up, and commencing new existence. Has no longer something to do with worldwide Warming. Melting ice caps can extra in all likelihood be attributed to distinctive wind currents. while that's 50 decrease than, one million degree does no longer make a distinction, yet heat air entering into the region by making use of air currents could. all of us only choose for some undemanding sense while thinking this scam talked approximately as worldwide Warming.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
For our economy, it would be. THe Kyoto pack has a dual purpose. The other is to hamper certain countries from being able to do business. It's easier for France, Japan and England to follow the Kyoto pack because their populatin is shrinking. Our population is growing so it would hurt our ability to manufacture. I was told it's bad for third world countries because it latter lock in their CO2 production. That would give the already developed nation who pollutes alot per capita because it prevents China and India to grow. Although my source on the last part is suspect. What I was told and what I saw on the Kyoto pact doesn't match. Of what I read there is some language to take that in consideration, but It's still not fair for the thrid world nation. As to building windmills and solar panel, they pollute in different ways. If they are not necessary they would be expensive to build up the infrastructure to follow the Kyoto pact. WInd power kills birds and solar panel has a relative short life span. I seriously doubt the pay back is 4 years. It's more like 10. One of the problem is greed. If it is mandatory to build them, prices might actually go up as well. My uncle was looking into buying one, and found that everytime the government gives a rebate or tax incentive to put up solar panel, the prices go up at the same amount. Also remember that the proces for Silicon wafers has gone down over the years. Also the price might go up because we might run out of raw material. Previously Solar panel production was limited to silicon wafers which microchips companies get priority.
- The WandererLv 61 decade ago
I would agree with you on almost every point. but to implement such ideas we would need our governments to take action. because people in the car industry have very strong links to the oil industry and this is why they will not change because at this time they see no profit in it.
You see one thing i've learnt in this life. is that in our time as before the great motivator on this planet is greed. as you said these systems have been with us for years. i mean ever heard of a windmill before. been around o a thousand years or so. ya see you can't make a lot of money out of wind. and that's the bottom line on this planet of ours.Source(s): One smart wabbit
- Ben OLv 61 decade ago
Why do you call CO2 pollution? When you travel in a car, or are inside an insulated building, CO2 levels rise to around tripple the outside levels, but you will never notice it. Can something be called pollution if it's impossible to detect without sophisticated equipment?
If solar were as cheap as you say, everyone would have it.
I know of one project - Scottish Law Courts when they spent 2 million pounds on a solar system that will save approx 200 pounds of electricity a year. The payback period is ten thousand years. It's completely inappropriate for the area because there is so little sun in that location. Schemes like this are massive monuments to stupidity conceived using logic that only a government could produce.
- Joseph LLv 51 decade ago
To begin with, the US has the cleanest technology on the planet.
We have reduced our smog emission 100 fold.
China, India, and South America are the biggest producers of pollution. They do not have any standards of pollution control.
The Kyoto protocols only apply to Western Nations.
Solar and wind production is a joke. If it was a viable solution, it would already have been done.
Do you think we don't already look for the best and cheapest solution?
Natural oil, gas, and shale coal isn't as good as manufacturing windmills and building solar panels?
Do you know how much materials and land would be required to produce any significant amount of energy?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
The problem is, you're talking about a very capital-intensive idea. Solar panels and windmills at every household? Who pays for that? Think about it, if I could reasonably expect a payoff of a couple years in energy savings to cover the initial investment of said capital, I would have installed all of this already. I understand you're looking at it from a pollution control ideology, and not necessarily a cost-savings one, but unfortunately the idea is rather cost-prohibitive.
- 1 decade ago
'Kyoto' is purely a UN and Proprietary Mega-Conglomerate attempt to realign global political and economic structures.
'Global Warming' was created as a tool to these ends