Pros And Cons Of Alternative Energy Sources

But some of the little steps people could do are out of reach for poor people. For instance, the difference of effects an LED light bulb and a regular bulb can do to the environment is huge. LED bulbs save energy and last longer, but has a price too high. Additionally, people in poverty still do actions like burning trash, which emits greenhouse gasses like CO2, making global warming worst where they can instead do the 3Rs (Reuse, reduce and recycle). Actions like which can change the future for the better are sadly not be able to be done by people in the poverty

Once the demand for petroleum go down the war for fossil fuels might die out. The problem with that is what batteries in electric cars are made of, lithium. Lithium is not as scarce as petroleum but if all cars need them the supply would go down and some of the only places to extract large amounts of lithium are China and Afghanistan (Braun, World). This leaves electric cars in the same position as fossil fueled cars, where they rely on a non renewable material that is required for them to work, but to get that material there may be war, like there is for petroleum. There is also another problem with lithium, it is hard to dispose of.

Nuclear energy may be the solution that eliminates our concern for energy production in the future, but it still remains a huge issue for the environment. Despite its wide use in many developed countries, nuclear energy poses many threats to both the

Nuclear waste must be monitored and regulated due to its volatile behaviour, which incurs large costs. The resources to develop a functioning nuclear power plant are presently available to us, however they are an expensive investment. It is very difficult for developing countries to be able to make the plants as they take upwards of 5-10 years to build in addition to the legal formalities that must be

For example, today, Alternative energy supplies “less than 7 percent of U.S. consumption.” This is only one first world country, imagine if every country became a first world country. That enormous demand for energy simply cannot be provided with today 's alternative solutions. For these reasons, opponents argue that it is more reliable to invest in discovering more oil rather than experimenting with expensive alternative solutions. Furthermore, the U.S. already has the means to efficiently process oil unlike new alternative solutions.

First we’ll start with the fact that nuclear power releases no greenhouse gasses. It has been stated by the U.S. department of energy that, "CO2 emmitions can be reduced through the greater use of nuclear energy for electronic generation. " From this statement we can draw out that if we were to start using nuclear energy more we could help reduce that amount of greenhouse gasses released into the environment. Some who opposes nuclear energy may say that although this is true, but it will hurt the environment in other ways. To that I’d say that nuclear power has not done as much damage to the environment as fracking and off shore oil rigs, only when major accidents occur, which are very uncommon.

Because the major negatives include only a holistic nation-wide overtaking by locavorism, positive characteristics will greatly outweigh those opposite. Communities that are eating, living, and flourishing off of the land on which they live have proven the movement to be a success. In conclusion, the immense nutritional, environmental, and microeconomical benefits to the locavore movement call for more people to participate in this wonderful

Their cost does not count the damage they cause to the environment because of this renewable energies are more costly. Onshore winds is the only renewable energy with a cost of production as low as fossil fuels. Mandle states that there is a bias in our political funding. Our government does not want to invest in these new technologies because they are do not want future generations to suffer from tax increases. Mandle explains that not addressing the climate change situation will cause more damage to future generation than some tax increases.

Nuclear energy does not result in the emission of any of greenhouses gases and other poisonous gases for instance, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. Nuclear power produces clean and compact energy with no carbon dioxide and using it is the best way to stop the global greenhouse emission causing global warming (Greenberg and Heather 820).

In “Electric Cars pros and cons” by Brad Berman, he emphasizes that electric cars don 't last long, and that the lack of electric stations also hurt their range. Electric cars are not intended to go on long trips either, and the lack of these electric stations puts a higher risk for people to be stranded in the middle of possibly nowhere. In “electric cars: benefits and disadvantages” by the author of Doug Demuro, he states that electric cars are not big on the range, and that you can run out of electricity when nowhere near an electric station. For example, the Ford Focus electric and the Nissan Leaf: they have a range of approximately 75 miles. These are just the affordable electric cars as well, buying one with more range would just lead to higher costs, so having the problem with possibly stopping nowhere near a station is not one you 'd

I truly believe we should be protecting it as much as we can. According to Goodine (2011) in her article “Fracking Controversy,” Krugman was right that companies don’t have to disclose the chemicals used for fracking. This is wrong. Taxpayers’ money also shouldn’t be going to the repairs due to this practice. It seems the pros of renewable energy outweigh those of natural gases.

In order to make as much money as possible, products must be sold and used to gain a maximum profit, which large corporations can’t make maximum profits from clean energy sources. As a leading superpower, America should be setting an example to other nations on conserving energy and water, to help the world as one large community, but just as the old saying goes “You can’t teach an old dog new

I. Introduction to controversy and arguments from both sides. In the world today there are many ways to be environmentally friendly; from bettering the water testing procedures, to using wind energy to power plants. However, other than recycling and picking up your trash there are few things the average person can do. There is – one thing that is on the rise; the use of solar energy.

Renewable energy is the more environmentally friendly option. The issue is that most countries main energy sources are nonrenewable and once a country turns nonrenewable it is very difficult and expensive to begin using renewable technology. Many countries simply do not have the wealth for the harvesting of renewable resources such as wind, solar, and nuclear. So the question is how do we provide energy to the people, well multiple companies turned to hydraulic fracturing. Today this is one of the most controversial method used to get energy.

Citizens of the United States should not need to pick between clean energy and clean drinking water. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is “the process of injecting liquid at high pressure into subterranean rocks, boreholes, etc., so as to force open existing fissures and extract oil or gas”(Oxford Dictionary). The fracking process is not a safer alternative to clean energy because it causes health risks and harm to the environment (Jackson et al. 2014). The academic journal titled, “The Environmental Costs and benefits of Fracking” claims the growth of the fracking industry is causing “high-density drilling to occur in areas with little or no previous oil and gas production, often literally in people 's backyards” (Jackson et al. 2014).