Say we had a green president, green administration instead of the current one, and they had taken half a trillion dollars and put it into solar.
Say every building had its own independent energy supply that would protect us when a terrorist attack happens as a result of mass murder for oil / cash. How many energy systems would that money have covered?
Say every new car was being built with solar technology…not hydrogen or other fuel resulting in daily costs to every citizen that would go to the wealthy stockholders instead of gas costs currently going to wealthy stockholders). How many cars do you suppose that money would have built, and how much more developed would the technology be by now?
hyspeed_games: That wasn’t my question. I asked, "How developed would solar technology be by now?"
First we have a planet, then we have sexist-free forums.
Hi,
Good question..
and YES it would be highly developed with all the money pumped into it.. unfortunately.. Bush and his cronies would not make money out of solar the way they make money out of oil.. so it was preferred to invade Iraq , concoct a load of lies.. and try steal its oil.. than actually develop your own technology to solve your own self made problems.. and lets face it.. Iraq has nothing to do with the fact Americans are the greediest over-consumers of rubbish on this planet.. but sadly.. they paid the price for it.. because they got the oil Americans need to produce more junk..
advances in solar tech are being made but it is still inneffecient as compared to oil/ coal/ nuclear. You can’t force an advance like that just by throwing money at it.
References :
That’s an interesting question. Of course, national security comes first, and depending on who you listen to, Iraq at the time might have been perceived as posing a threat to the United States and its allies. (Hindsight, of course, is always 20/20.) However, if we could’ve poured the money into renewable energy alternatives, we would certainly be farther along to independence.
Still, there are many who oppose alternative forms of energy in the US. Solar is probably not one of them (except for the ‘not in my backyard’ crowd), but we’ve seen nuclear, wind and water generators of electricity shot down because of environmental groups that limit or prevent their development and construction. Brazil certainly has the right idea (see link) with ethanol derived from sugar-cane. Why Americans don’t want to support this is amazing, probably because of the corn farmers that would be hurt.
Something has to give and our politicians are not helping.
References :
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=1938027&page=1
If the US populace believed that it was so very important, they would have elected "green" representatives.
Obviously, having a free society where girls can ask questions on the internet is more important than solar power.
References :
Well, first of all, it really isn’t government’s job to deveope new technologies, other that those of obvious military significance. That is the job of the free market. That being said, I would certainly like to see government stop impeding research and enterprise. It is precisley because "green" politicians have created such encumbrances as environmental impact statements, regulations, licensing requirements and permits. Government has destroyed opportunity and incentive.
Getting on to the second part of your question, there is a common perception that oil reserves are rare. The fact of the matter is that oil is readily available in many places, including our own country, as well as offshore. The problem is that our politicians have been bought by special interests (the big oil producers). What you don’t realize is that all this invironmental hysteria is funded, to a large exstent, bu big oil. What these oil giants want is to lock up oil reserves to stifle their competition (anyone else who would dare to get oil out of the ground). That’s why the price of oil is so high.
Competition in the oil industry would bring us cheap oil. When the major oil companies use government to control oil production for their own benefit, high prices are the result.
You have to stop believing what politicians say. Most of them are lying sacks of you know what. They claim to be "environmentalists", when if fact, they are working for the major oil companies.
Military involvement in the Middle East has not brought us cheap oil, it has brought us expensive oil! Why do people still believe the lie that our involvement is to get us cheap oil? We have oil here. There is oil in Alaska. There is oil under the Atlantic ocean near Norway. There is oil near the Falkland Islands. There is plenty of oil, but the oil companies have plenty of money to bribe politicians.
References :
Hi,
Good question..
and YES it would be highly developed with all the money pumped into it.. unfortunately.. Bush and his cronies would not make money out of solar the way they make money out of oil.. so it was preferred to invade Iraq , concoct a load of lies.. and try steal its oil.. than actually develop your own technology to solve your own self made problems.. and lets face it.. Iraq has nothing to do with the fact Americans are the greediest over-consumers of rubbish on this planet.. but sadly.. they paid the price for it.. because they got the oil Americans need to produce more junk..
References :
that would require fuel and energy stock holders to wait a few years to see a huge return on the advancements.
Kind of like any other alternative fuel industry. they’ll become feasible sources of energy, when they are monopolized, the way to make them(grow them on farmland) is monopolized, and the cost to produce a personal supply is far to expensive for everyone to do in their back yard.
References :