I would welcome a debate on the major issue of emissions of industrial global warming gases. The climate change effect of the emissions of fluorocarbons, commonly used in most refrigeration and air-conditioning systems, far exceeds that of all transportation, yet little is said about it. And there are natural, sustainable options available to counteract this effect. This is a secret well kept by the larger chemical manufacturers, but it is an issue that we all can help solve though our choice of purchasing.
The world is facing an economic and cultural chaos due to the climate fear. This fear is based on half truths or half lies from the UN and others. Where is the scientific dispute presented? Where is the critical international press who is supposed to ask questions and check the answers? Do not let us down now.
Wouldn't it be something if Silicon Valley made itself fully powered by alternative energy and recycled 100 percent of its waste! A worthy target or what? Just to show the way.
Solar energy is the easiest source of energy in the sense that it is not what you buy or spend your money in getting and it has realy halped a lot of people most especially those in rural areas. It is quite interesting to know that solar energy is a better source of energy.
The discussion on alternative energy could have been done by staying away from Shell as the sponsor of the program at Shanghai. Everybody knows what damage shell has been doing in Nigeria and all its other plants. There should have been more concerns shown towards banning of cutting trees for Christmas and a total ban of wood trade, the present discussion just shows the companies which are doing well with alternative energy sources. What about those 90 percent or more of the region of the world which doesn't understand what you say and have no alternative energy. The main emphasis needs to be on reconstructing the depleting ozone layer as the first and foremost plan and then cutting on all green house gas. This needs a global consensus and action.
We are in the midst of an energy crisis that is affecting South Africans across the board. We have a government-backed energy provider that is only talking nuclear energy. I hope they learn about renewable energy.
It is a widely prevalent practice in urban Malaysia for householders to leave some lights on during the night when they are sleeping. The basis for this practice is the belief that the lights will keep away burglars. Is there any convincing research evidence in the area of crime prevention that supports or rejects this assumption? If it's just an unfounded assumption, then it may be a big energy saving idea if citizens in Malaysia and in other places where similar practices exist to be educated about this. It could result in saving a lot of energy. Personally I do not believe that leaving lights on at night in houses discourages burglaries.
Is there any research currently looking at the conversion of sound/noise into electrical energy? I believe this may complement the other renewable energy sources.
Why can't air conditioner suppliers be made to supply air conditioners with their own solar panel supply?
I am in absolute shock at how totally inaccurate the "Principal Voices" television program was that aired last night on CNN International on November 22,2007. What kind of deception is this? Talking about the problem of CO2 emissions while showing a picture of a nuclear power plant. That is water vapour coming out of those stacks. Then proposing the use of solar energy to power the world while neglecting the fact that there are no good storage methods for the electricity. We also need power at night and the sun is not up!
The biggest perplexity for me was the clip about the hydrogen fuel cell in New York's Central Park during the blackout. Please! We need to have a realistic look at the potential fuel sources for a sustainable environment and not misrepresent our current technology. It seems like some over-zealous CEOs in their pursuit to make money by playing on environmental issues are not telling the whole truth! TV shows like this one make me wonder if anyone really cares about practical methods to move toward global sustainability.
The need for the world to embrace the development of a new energy source is right now, this will go along way to the sustainability of our existence and ecosystem balance. This is a clarion call to the entire world to embrace a new green strategy, in all that we do as individuals, corporate bodies and nations at large.
As part of the dialogue on energy and sustainability, we should not shy away from the reality of starting with radically changing our energy use and consumption habits before, or in addition to, looking for alternative energy sources. Dubai just had one of the world's most extravagant air shows in November, as is the practice in many developed countries. Such an energy wasting exercise, and many more like it, should be banned through international agreements. Such a ban can then be extended to similar wasteful energy uses at the household level. Ultimately, we must save humanity from its own recklessness and not the environment from humanity.
There is not enough financing for innovative technologies, billions are pumped into traditional sources, well-knowing that there are better alternatives. I do not believe that large companies want a fast solution; they want it only when they are ready for it.
It is a myopic view to keep saying solar energy is not available everywhere in the same density petroleum is not available in most part of the world at all yet we find ways to move it to everywhere once we are ready to do what is needed. For now enough people are been enriched with petroleum that they would rather not put funds in the development of other forms of energy.
I think it's high time that we make use of our hydro and solar energy to power our vehicles. We have inventors here in the Philippines but the problem is the government isn't that supportive enough of the ideas of these inventors.
Lack of information and excess of business interest are the main problems to be solved. Everybody knows that biofuels based on vegetables oils are expensive, but from algae, they are ten times cheaper and can be produced at one hundred times more per square-foot of land and beside that, land used is not useful for agriculture: deserts and swamps. I consider we are now on the right way for replacing fossil fuels.
Clearly there are so many views and so much energy spent identifying the correct way ahead to address the energy crisis of the planet. Yet the observer witnesses that the people that know (and those that should know) and are empowered are continually re-arranging the deckchairs on "Our Titanic Earth". It is clear that the great and the good do not want to attack the problem at its source (a conflict of interest? maybe) and linger the pain for the poor masses, it seems yet again that the people that can afford to pay vast sums are leading the trickle to re-source their energy needs. It's a fashion statement with internal, self gratifying holier-than-thou feelings for the "Rich Green Warriors". We need mass micro solutions to the energy problem. Individual households need to generate their own energy from The Solar source and governments should switch the public (our) funds accordingly. All other interests are secondary.
We should convince Shell and companies like it that they have to leave fossil material like oil, coal and gas where it is, under ground. There is more then enough renewable energy, like wind and solar for all of us, especially underdeveloped countries, and China and India.
Our investment in renewables should be an inspiration for other countries. And Shell should commit a growing share of its investment on renewables - 10 percent yearly, growing to 50 percent in 2020.
The Hydrogen Economy by Jeremy Rifkin pretty well outlines what he considers the only alternative. However, are governments prepared to alter the existing power grid in time to avert grave consequences?
For several years I have worked on what I have called "super-efficient biogas systems", developing bioreactors which have shown to be highly effective. I have come to realize the fact that energy from biogas is cheap and cleaner but the amount of energy truly realizable from this source alone cannot support the ever growing energy requirements of the developing world. For now we need to focus more on improving the energy efficiency of existing machines and see other sources of energy such as biogas as supplemental. For me, I think the low hanging fruits will be to develop high efficiency technology. There is actually no difference between reducing energy consumption, developing more energy efficient technology and developing "clean" energy. They are all related and interdependent but they all will emerge from developing more energy efficient technology.
Excellent stuff! I am a great believer in massive government investment in solar PV power (via grants) and solar hot water systems and all available renewables. As he says with current technology if we covered every roof in the UK with PV we could exceed demand, so imagine how much better the technology will get with more R&D and then perhaps we can all go to using electric cars and bikes too. All we need is a clean way of producing the electricity and solar power is that technology.
With the new paradigm of energy and environment coming into focus, look to the hydrocarbon industry of oil and gas to be a major force for change, not an impediment as the public may imagine. These original and reliable energy providers are seeing whole new opportunities for the future, and are becoming an increasingly vocal advocate for change.
I firmly believe it is about time society as a whole takes the lead and pushes governments to create incentives for those, public or private beings and entities, involved in utilizing, developing or producing, the technologies that better serve the environment.
I think rich countries must to invest more in poor countries to bring those people a better life. In fact, they (rich countries) only take away resources and leave behind poverty and pollution.
My personal opinion is that solar energy is our future, but for now, we must solve some technical issues e.g. solar panels in lower earth orbit in combination with transmitting electrical energy on long distances without cables and wires. Sounds like fiction? Well, N. Tesla worked on these issues a century ago.
You have a couple choices for the kind of energy the human species needs to be around for a couple thousand more years. Solar energy, geo thermal, and fusion. Nuclear power is just not fun, and if you bemoan the loss of land from solar and wind farms you should be shot for not ranting about highway systems and parking lots.
I think there are some areas that still need to use natural gas, or something very similar, but I think a good majority of the world could get on just fine with solar energy (and obviously Michigan is one of those places that can't).
Why should there be an ever increasing demand for energy? The price has simply been too low. So increase energy prices and decrease taxes at the same time. Until the equilibrium is reached energy wise with availability and demand. A simple marketing decision.
PhotoVoltaic (PV) solar cells are only one sort of inexhaustible energy. Others are wind, solar thermal, tide, wave biomass and wood. We should not put all are eggs in one basket and develop all of them. For heating, cooling, hot water and low temperature industrial processes, solar thermal is cheaper and more efficient. Furthermore PC cells deliver only electricity during the day. We need some electricity at night too.
Efficiency is for the moment still the most economic effort to reduce fossil fuel dependence. Passive houses need 10 times less energy to heat and efficient lighting is 5 times more efficient than Mr. Edison's invention. A lot of light is wasted and can be reduced by intelligent systems.
I would like to know who is working to fix these problems and not only talking about them. I would like to help, but I feel like the people that have solutions for these problems are not the people in charge.
The present cost of getting a unit of solar energy is much more expensive than the same unit of nuclear or any other source of energy. Commerce is the backbone of the world. When the economics of solar energy are favourable, solar energy will be accepted worldwide.
I am really touched by these initiatives and they would so much apply in our situations. We need to act on this.
Solar energy would be the best source of energy in the next century. Scientists just need a little more research and innovation.
As the world struggles with environmental problems, solar energy will be a good source for clean and efficient energy. Meanwhile I hope it will be the cheapest and the most accessible for all countries around the world. If we want to save the planet we should try to have clean energy use and accelerate our activities to have a large amount of solar energy in the world.
The Kyoto protocol will not be successful, only Germany is achieving the goal but the theory of the global warming caused by human activities is a hoax, used for politically directing the industry to renewable energies. The oil and natural gas will remain the majority source of energy.
Fossil fuels and fission nuclear power are both non-sustainable energy sources. We humans need to start taking a longer view of the resources of this planet. Solar panels could easily provide for most electricity used in many countries and their long-term impact is minimal. Other "sustainable" means of tapping solar energy, such as farming, must be carefully managed, or they can have devastating effects on the environment (deforestation, runoffs). I call for governments to invest heavily in PV technology. My own house has a 5kW system installed that provides for all the power we use (averaged over a year).
This could be a good option. In some cases the technology develops faster than others and for that reason we have to make many changes in finding our sources of energy.
Even though solar energy is a good option, I wonder if Ghana and other African countries can afford to set up solar power stations.
The media promotes and sustains global warming. I watch and read in bemusement that not one of this group reports on how much they contribute to this perceived disaster. The mobs of reporters, cameras and supporting staff, must consume in a minute all the energy this island uses in a year.
Perhaps one day an organization like yours will have the courage to let us know how much energy from fossil fuels you consume in one hour. I am tired of being hassled by a cult that you encourage, when you and your industry is a main contributor to our energy dependence.
According to me solar power plants are the solution to our energy crisis. The main point is that it is an everlasting source. I agree that the investment will me more but there is a long term benefit of this. Our non renewable source will get exhausted sooner or later so we have to find proper alternative for this that will be environmental friendly. We can have nuclear power too as an alternative but the radiation is very harmful for the environment. It is our duty to properly channel whatever renewable sources are given to us in order to have a better future.
The intermittency of renewable energy sources is a problem that can be mitigated. Hydro has already solved this with dams. Wind power is looking at compressed air and also various tethered kite systems that float at altitudes where the wind is constant. I am sure that solar can deal with the intermittency issue too. As for nuclear, please solve the nuclear waste disposal problem before positioning it as a clean energy source. As well, there is no doubt that nuclear has safety problems (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island) that are all the more serious in the wake of 9/11.
Unfortunately Karl Davis (Wisconsin, USA) is quite right in his comment, below.
One has to cut back those greenhouse-gas emitters that matter most: heating up homes with poor insulation and the lack of breaking energy feedback in cars have a much higher effect than electricity production, especially if it comes from nuclear.
Sooner or later we have to leave fossil fuels. Solar energy is a very prospective choice. It is flexible and abundant. We can develop a module solar energy for every house and big power plants for factories and industries. Talking about the space, we can use our roof top and wall as an energy absorber.
One of the main problems is the manufacturing cost of solar cells. Therefore we have to press the cost. The first solution is the political will from every leader to create more demand in order to push the cost down. And the second solution is to find another way to capture and use the solar energy. Maybe we can learn from trees?
Like any new technology, capture and storage is vital. Can the energy from the sun be stored at a low cost to allow operation 24hrs a day 365 days a year in some places like Adelaide Australia where sunlight is fairly consistent throughout the year, or can solar be implemented in such a way as part of an overall energy mix that brings down the use of fossil fuels with zero cost.
The problem of storing energy over night can easily be solved by diverting half of the power supply to drive the electrolysis of water. This will produce hydrogen and oxygen which can be stored indefinitely. You can then combust it to create kinetic energy or you can convert the hydrogen and oxygen chemically into electrical energy. What is great about storing your energy in this fusion is that the hydrogen and oxygen can be used as fuel to power cars and planes for long distances at high speeds. In order for the combustion to work you will need a ceramic engine in order to deal with the high temperatures.
The big problem related to solar energy is the enormous cost and consumption of land. Solar energy is not available everywhere in the same density. First of all we have to produce systems which run efficiently on solar energy.