Argument Solved! There are Benefits to Green Energy

The world has relied on fossil fuels for a long time. Fossil fuels are used to heat our homes, gas our cars, and provide electricity. We are starting to see the consequences of habitual fossil fuel use. Resources are becoming depleted and slowly our planet is dying.

Many say that green energy sources are too hard to generate. Green energy technology is in its infancy. Currently, it may be harder to generate than burning fossil fuels, however; there are many different options for green energy. All we have to do is identify green energy sources that are viable for each US geographic region.

The various green energy sources such as solar, wind, wave, and geothermal don’t produce anything harmful which makes for a positive effect on the environment. This is the exact opposite of what you get when you continue to operate a coal or nuclear power plant.

Fossil fuels release harmful carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Individually, a coal plant may not produce a large amount of carbon dioxide but our world currently has 50,000 coal plants. Cumulatively, that is an enormous amount of carbon dioxide. We must reverse this trend before it is too late and cultivate sources of green energy.

Many say nuclear power is a reliable solution. No one disputes that nuclear power does produce a large amount of energy. The dispute is whether or not we are effectively and safely disposing of the spent nuclear rods. We also have to consider nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. These incidents were many years ago and we’ve gotten better at containment, however; it only takes one accident.

Green energy also requires maintenance. Windmills have mechanical parts that must be maintained. Corn to make ethanol must be grown. Biomass fuels require the trash to be separated and sorted. All of these choices are more attractive than fossil fuels. Green energy utilizes facilities that are cheaper to operate.

Green energy is renewable. This is probably the most important advantage to green energy. Unlike fossil fuels, we will not run out of green energy. Since the beginning of the universe, the sun’s rays have reached the Earth. As these rays reach the earth, they produce wind. Every time we use green energy, we are moving closer to breaking our addiction to fossil fuels.

Every American has a choice. We can continue to increase our appetite for fossil fuels or we can pursue renewable energy sources. Our governments are only giving lip service to green energy. They hold summits and conferences on global climate change. They tell us we have to reduce our use of fossil fuels but do not offer any alternatives.

Awareness does not always mean change. Daily we are told that global climate change is here. People are told what they should do yet, not even the government is building wind mills or erecting solar panels. Who will lead by example?

Green energy sources is the solution to the environmental, political and social problems of this lifetime. By spending more on these technologies, no country will have to depend on another country or even a corporation for their power needs because they are self dependent and free.

Are you ready to commit to saving our environment? Find out how you can get home made energy plans today. Environmental change is in your hands. The environment will thank you.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

  • Although I am on the side of the sceptic ones considering global warming and such. One doesn't have to be very intelligent to understand that fossil fuel sources will someday dry up. I'm no expert at all on the subject. But I've been wondering for years and years now why big open spaces like the big deserts around the worlds, haven't been used more for green energy sources. They seem to be a great source for both wind and solar energy. Or am I just being very naiIeve here?

    About the nuclear energy subject, I'm still on the fence about that one. Of course we can assume everything is much, much saver now than back in the 80's. But still. I have this "negative" feeling always about nuclear plants and such. Simply because there is always chance or error. And when it goes wrong, it can REALLY go wrong. Also the nuclear waste problem is still a problem AFAIK.
  • I discovered this blog via a comment you left on EcoGeek. Nice site Michelle ! :)

    I liked that article as we indeed have to embrace renewables and stop using coal, oil and natural gas. However I would like to point out two things:

    Energy efficiency is vital if we want to stop using fossil fuels. Renewables will never enable America (or any other continent) to consume as much energy as it does now. the IEA specialists believe efficiency will account for half the needed greenhouse gases cuts.

    Another point I would like to make. My homecountry - France - relies very heavily on nuclear for its electricity generation. It never had too big a problem. This enables the country to have lower carbon emissions than most developed nations.

    Saying nuclear is dangerous because of Chernobyl is a flawed argument like Patrick said. The plant was of soviet technology from the 70s. Would you drive a Lada from the 70s ? I wouldn't :)

    I personally support nuclear for several reasons I blogged about : http://www.elrst.com/2009/10/26/10-reasons-to-s...

    (this answers the concerns on waste, safety and Uranium depletion. Hope you will like it)

    I look forward to reading your next post ! Keep up the good work ! :)
  • Thanks so much Edouard! You make some valid points when it comes to Nuclear energy. I'm 50-50 on the Nuclear topic and I'm also currently working on an article that points our both sides of the argument of (for and against) choosing Nuclear. Looking forward to your input when it's finished. :)
  • I will sure read that with interest.

    I just saw that my article didn't point to the following articles. (it's a series) I should correct that !
  • I like you point Patrick. Never thought about it that way in regards to "flawed logic".
  • I agree that there needs to be continued safety measures taken to ensure that there are no more incidents like Chernobyl but I get so tired of the general public automatically making that association whenever nuclear energy is brought up. Reactor technology is leaps and bounds from where it was when that happened and making the "Chernobyl argument" against nuclear is like saying that because the Hindenburg crashed aviation is inherently flawed and shouldn't have been pursued or trusted. It's flawed logic.
    The public needs to become more educated about nuclear and the fear mongering needs to stop.
    Look at the comparison of fuel used compared to uranium or thorium
blog comments powered by Disqus