A Million Green Ideas

Question by eric c: Is the notion of alternative energy being economically viable wishing thinking?


Skeptics have always maintained that if alternative energy was viable in a free market economy, they would already be in use. Proponents of global warming have always criticized skeptics as being stupid, uniformed and uneducated for maintaining this position and that alternative energy was indeed viable.

It turns out shell oil has backed out of the alternative energy investments saying it is economically a poor investment.

“Shell will no longer invest in renewable technologies such as wind, solar and hydro power because they are not economic, the Anglo-Dutch oil company said today… The company said that many alternative technologies did not offer attractive investment opportunities. Linda Cook, Shell’s executive director of gas and power, said: “If there aren’t investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won’t put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/mar/17/royaldutchshell-energy

Best answer:

Answer by davem
Although alternative energy is here in various forms, it’s still too new to be of much use to us. In it’s current forms it is of little value when considering affordable energy that can fill all or most of our total needs.

We’ve shown that wind and solar power do work and even help now to provide energy in certain places but, overall they remain too expensive and unreliable to make large scale applications viable. Maybe someday that will change and we can lessen our dependence on oil, but til then it’s a pipe dream. We do know that the expense of even the smallest projects makes it unlikely using today’s technology.

Give your answer to this question below!

OK, I am really into the environment and I am always thinking of ways to clean it up. So how about this little gem of an idea: Stop using the toilet.

The toilet is an environmental disaster: All that water wasted and toilet paper not to mention all the poop and pee. The solution: Pee in the sink or outside, and poop in fast food bags you would just throw away anyway, and then put the bags in the trash.

I know this would work, but do you think the average American could handle it? Do you think we care enough?

Best reply by Jacob D:

No offense but that’s just plain silly
all waste water from your toilet gets treated by your local waste water plant
and if everyone did as you suggested, then things would be no better than it was in the middle ages, lots of disease comes from untreated waste and simply peeing outside is em brassing and indecent not to mention un treated and unprocessed poop can lead someone to be getting sick

Read more replies
Would pooping in a bag be better for the environment than using the toilet?

Footer Ad Script

I’m writing an essay about wheather or not people are a product of nature or nurture.

I got to thinking about the play “BAD SEED” in which a little girl is a serial killer and it’s a “trait” she presumably “inherets” from her grandmother who was a serial Killer. However her mother is not a violent person at all.

IN the end the little girl is a product of nature and not of nurture.

In what cases throughout history is this true? Were a serial Killer (or any criminal for that matter) was brought up in a “good” environment and still is a criminal?

Best reply by Headache:

Aside from the extremes of serial killers, we can look at other mental disorders such as clinical depression. These things come right out of the blue at times, at other times they are inherited by the environmental factors. So i believe it is very possible.

Some examples:
H. H. Holmes
Stephan Letter

Read the original question here
What serial killers were NOT a product of their environment?