Times are changing. In the modern western world energy for households is considered to be one of life necessities. Without energy total chaos will be the result. This has been the raw truth when parts California and New York were without energy. Lucky for us these were only incidents. But energy is becoming very expensive and using it has very negative side effects, for which we are paying the price today. To avoid a situation where only the rich can effort it, we need to change our course and take a different route. One promising route we can follow is the route of alternate energy.
When we look at the sources we use today one can say that they not only give us energy, but we pay a high price for it. Not only is the actual market price for traditional energy increasing the problems are getting bigger too. One disadvantage of using fossil fuel is that the supply is limited and with a growing demand the prices increase. Prices for petrol are increasing on a daily basis and ordinary people are really feeling the financial pain. It doesn’t look that this price increase will be turned around soon, instead we’d better get used to these high prices.
The pollution it causes has it effect on the climate by increasing the earths temperature. The effect on the earth climate is dramatic and we witness the consequences every day. Hurricanes, heavy rains and heat waves are some of the negative effects on our climate. Of course not all these are the blame of pollution, but it can not be ignored. By using these fossil fuels we are slowly poisoning the world we live in, killing the very civilization we hope to strengthen.
In search of the alternatives for traditional energy the concept of self-sufficient alternative energy was born. But what is it? It is the concept that your house can produce its own energy from the sun, wind and water. You can use sunshine to convert the sun rays into electricity and hot water. You can use the hot water to heat your home and of course for running hot water. With small wind turbines you can create your own electricity as with flowing water. These energy sources are available for nearly every one and best of all it is free. They also don’t pollute the environment and that is a great advantage.
For the self-sufficient alternative home you will need the technology to convert these energy sources into usable energy. This all seems great but the technology comes with a price-tag and it can be substantial. Depending on your location you might be able to use the mentioned energy sources. The more you alternate energy you can convert the more you save. When you look at the savings you should not overlook the investment. On the other hand you often can take advantage of tax credits, but that depends on where you live. Of course you can use the internet as a source of information on the latest news on tax credits; it will save you a lot of money and will shorten the return on investment.
There are enough reasons to make you home a self sufficient energy home. There are various ways to achieve this. If you are planning to invest in alternate energy take the time to do the research and let a reliable company walk you through all the alternatives including tax credits and other benefits. This will be an investment you will put a smile on your face for saving money and making this earth a better place. Others may see you as their inspiration and follow your footsteps.
Bryan Wong
http://www.articlesbase.com/environment-articles/being-self-sufficient-with-alternative-energy-51914.html
Comments
on the energy/gas question, is the goal to bring down prices or is it to become more energy self-sufficient?
alternative energy (never defined) won’t bring down the prices of energy/gas. nor will conservation. nor will government mandate. nothing will bring down the prices, so why do anything?
show me how any of the above is going to bring the prices down.
so the question is, is it the politicians’ goal to bring down prices or to become more energy self-sufficient?
can it be both at the same time? how?
the libs are always moving the goalposts. they don’t want coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, oil, what is left?
i always give Thumbs Down for one liners or answers that have no thinking behind them and i don’t care about your grammer/spelling. but give me your elaborated answers so i can choose one to give the points to.
tell ya the truth: although if we used nuclear power to melt coal we would get fuel, i am not so certain that rebuilding or refitting/modernizing our nuclear plants is such a good idea. the popular notion is that spent nuclear fuel is recyclable. no, it isn’t! why is it brought in the strongest tanks that they can make to one mountain area and put all of it there? that is recycling it? huh! maybe someone here can explain that one to me.
Yes.
We need both. The high energy costs are hurting our economy, and being dependent on foreign sources for oil leaves us hostage to their whims.
The time is right for alternative energy. The problem in the past has been that it was more economical (read: "cheaper") to use oil. However, with oil at record levels, alternatives are becoming affordable.
The problem is that we’re not following up on them.
We have three timeframes that we need to concern ourselves with:
Immediate: Get the price of oil down.
Short term (5-10 years) Become as oil independent as possible
Long term (10+ years) Reduce/eliminate our need for fossil fuels.
References :
The goal should be both.
References :
Want both.
Bring down the oil prices with more supply; drill!
Bring down the oil prices with less demand; build more nukes.
Conserve on energy.
References :
Democrats don’t seem to be all that interested in bringing down prices. They want to pass legislation to be able to go after "price gougers" with huge monetary penalties… they want to tax the energy companies more… Basically… all of their ideas will bring more revenue to the federal government, and possibly (like Obama’s 10 year plan) make us stop using oil… But every plan that I have read would raise prices in the short term…
References :
Less demand will lower prices or more supply brings down prices. If you conserve and increase supply it will bring down prices. The goal is to be more energy self-sufficient while bring down prices.
References :
I think nuclear and hydo would be great
The US needs more money into structural development of wind, solar, geothermal and tidal plants.
This country is hooked on oil like a crackhead to a pipe
If demand for oil is reduced the price will go down, supply and demand.
References :
The goal should always been energy security. A plentiful energy supply will reduce prices naturally.
I have a 3-point plan to solve our energy insecurity:
1. Increase our domestic supply. Drill more. Build more refineries. Build nuclear plants.
2. Become more energy efficient. Conserve.
3. Continue to develop alternative forms and sources of energy.
I call it the Energy Security Triad.
It always amazes me why some will oppose some portions of it. Some will say we can’t drill our way to security, but we’re not going to get their by not drilling. Some say we shouldn’t have to conserve. What’s wrong with conserving. It’s wasteful to use more then you need. Why would you deliberately waste something? Some say alternative energy can’t do it. Well, it sure won’t if we don’t try!
References :
I’ve answered a few questions like this before, and ethanol always comes to mind…I have an ethanol plant in the city where I live….its a failure…sure around 120 more people have jobs but at what cost? We pay $4.19 a gallon for gas and they share our zip code, so i think ethanol is a failure beyond belief…its resulted is higher grocery costs, etc…..this years ago was going to be the "answer"…quite frankly, I think we need to focus our time on more energy self-sufficiency…fuel is a necessary evil…we need to push auto makers to produce more efficient vehichles…because I for one agree anyone should be able to drive what they want and as much as they want….they need to come up with a affordable solution to vehichles already on the road…many can not afford a prius, etc…
References :
a liberal whos for limited drilling
Liberals have a goal to force us off of fossil fuels, no matter what the cost, and what the lasting affects are. Should our economy collapse and we go into a depression, no matter, just eat your tofu.
Conservatives want to limit our use of fossil fuels while keeping our economy rolling. That the market will eventually force us off fossil fuels and drive us to a greener globe.
References :
drilling here and drilling now both lowers the price of gasoline because of speculation and the fact that the rest of the world realizes they can’t take advantage of us anymore, AND, it will help us be more self sufficient… obviously.
Israel and Iran are going to go at it here soon enough, either we find a way to fuel ourselves soon, or we’re going to be sad little boys and girls watching our oil blow up in the middle east.
And, in addition we should be using coal, nuclear, and other methods of fueling our world… but they go hand in hand with oil, not one or the other.
References :
http://www.americansolutions.com
Oil prices were back under control last Fall – - the jump since then is the result of the Fed’s rate cuts, pouring unneeded liquidity into the market. The Fed can’t control where that liquidity goes, and it goes into asset bubbles. The big debate has been whether the Fed should prick asset bubbles and the arguments against doing that are specious – they’re based on the notion of "not interfering with the market" and "who are we to decide what the right price is for an asset" – - failing to concede that they CREATE the asset bubbles to begin with.
What the Fed needs to do is leave growth to the province of the fiscal policymakers and focus solely on a stable money supply.
References :