| theprof00 said: Your second paragraph and on is very misinformed. Electric is the most efficient energy source we have. Instead of burning gasoline in cars (extremely inefficient) we can burn them in a plant and feed the electricity to other applications. And yes I know we can't "switch" to wind and solar. That is a demonization to think that that's our goal. Wind and solar and tidal are meant to offset, not replace. Furthermore, currently in the world today, there is 194 Gigawatts being produced worldwide. That's enough to power 194 million homes. We get a lot more power from it than you think. By 2020, the government wants 20% of our energy use based off of wind. Do you realize how much oil that displaces? So, much to your chagrin, we don't actually need to displace tons of animal habitats for it. We use tidal and wind in conjunction in oceans farms, and displaces very little. There is a major reduction in usage, and you just need to educate yourself a little better. You have some good questions, and some logic behind it, but from what I can tell, your sources have blown it out of proportion. Additionally, there are many places that are nigh unliveable that are perfect environments for energy gathering, like the desert, the ocean, craggy landscapes, etc etc that we've only begun to transform into collection fields. By 2020 we could possibly offset oil needs by as much as 35-40%. You know how the arab world is only really a power because of their oil? Connect the dots, man. You're a bright guy. There is so much more to gain than just energy and jobs. There's independence, defunding of the arab countries, raising the world standard, cultural reach, etc etc. |
As far as i know 25-30% of energy is lost when burning fuels to convert to electricty (in power plants, closer to 40-50% for home generators) and than even more when transferring that energy to where it is used. How much energy is lost when burning gas for kinectic energy?
