Should the U.S. Invest in the Research and Use of Alternative Energies?

Oil, gas, and fossil fuels have been recent controversial issues. There are cleaner forms of energy that could be used, but it is unclear what sources should be used and how to

At the beginning of last year, I convinced my family to start using environmentally products, focusing on green technology. In order to apply environmental technology properly and effectively, I had to figure out what alternative forms of energy existed and how well they worked. This led to my questioning: what other forms of energy could the United States be pursuing to increase its production of electricity? In an effort to research different form of energy and their benefits and detriments, I read two articles: “A Letter to the Editor” by David Rockwood and “Why Uranium is the New Green” by William Sweet. In his letter, David Rockwood, a professional engineer, discusses the several inaccuracies and possible ramifications of wind power as a main source of electricity. Rockwood claims that wind power is unreliable because of flaws in its system and design, not to mention the detrimental environmental impact. Similarly, in his article William Sweet, a college graduate, talks about different ways to impose some kind of carbon regulation. Sweet compares nuclear and wind power to coal-burning power, remarking that nuclear and wind power technologies can make an immediate beneficial difference on greenhouse gas emissions. Despite the fact that Rockwood goes in depth on only wind power while Sweet talks about multiple sources of power, both of the articles made me think that the United States should pursue some other form of energy to increase its production of electricity.

The origin of Euthyphro’s Dilemma began with a discussion between Socrates and Euthyphro, Socrates wanted to learn the nature of piety in order to tell the court his action of corrupting the young with impiety was wrong and had come to a realization. With Socrates many lines of questioning for Euthyphro, one specific question lead to the creation of Euthyphro’s argument, known as Euthyphro’s dilemma, an argument that refuses the Divine Command Theory. To better understand Euthyphro’s argument, I will present the similarity between Euthyphro’s Dilemma and the Divine Command Theory, along with the two types of DCT and lastly, explain the version I believe is the most plausible.

Of course the majority of the public would start using free , clean energy sources instead of using expensive sources of energy that harm the earth. So in order to stop that, they make committees that go around and pick up alternate forms of energy that are invented and remove them from public access so the people won’t switch over to those energy sources. Then if the inventor wants to patent it and make it public, they must go through the patent office and wait a year. This is also how they slow down production of alternate energy. They make them wait a year before making it public so they can make more money during that year. The oil and gas monopolies are suppressing energy for the wrong reasons. They are doing it for money, and not for the greater good. In essence if the whole public switched to alternate energy there wouldn’t be any more need for gas or oil because there are enough forms of energy to replace them. But by stopping these alternate energies oil and gas companies can continue to make money. Alternate energy is cheap today. For example, in California solar developers have bought contracts for alternate energy over natural gas because it is cheaper and more efficient. Also alternate energy produces more jobs than fossil fuels do, so the actual company itself doesn’t make as much money. That would also be another reason why companies suppress alternate energy. Also some alternate energy prices cannot be compared to fossil fuels because they are suppressed by the receipt of state and federal incentives. The world will be used up a lot quicker if corporations and companies continue to suppress alternate energy just for

In the 1960’s and 1970’s a movement regarding the physical environment began, this movement focused on a few environmental issues and disasters caused directly or indirectly by pollution. As the years progressed, this movement grew into a multifaceted activist movement gaining more attention in the US, more often referred as “Environmentalism” or “Environmental Activism”. As the human race realized the physical environment is fragile and thus must be protected, scientists started to look for more efficient and ecologically safe energy sources. The introduction of renewable energy brought to light all of these issues, giving a viable alternative for the nation’s energy future, implementing resources that are naturally replenished and also, eco-friendly.

The problem with non-renewable sources of energy is that it produces an abundance and of harmful byproducts when burned or extracted and obviously because it is non-renewable. After taking the rigorous course of AP environmental science, I learned even more about the environment and the endless list of terrible things we are doing to destroy it on a daily basis. Yes, we are doing things to undo or stop the damage we have done but at way too slow of a pace. By the time scientist discover some revolutionary invention it will be way too

Statistics say that the most recent study published by the Department of Justice, from 2002, reported that of the 797,500 children reported missing in a one-year period, 203,900 were abducted by family members and 58,200 were abducted by non-relatives. One-hundred and fifteen were classified as being taken by a stranger. (http://www.cnn.com/missing-children-fast-facts/) .

I wanted to be a firefighter when I was younger, because I wanted to help people and save lives. As I have gotten older, I began to think that wanting to be a firefighter was a dumb idea because I was too chubby, too small, and too afraid. This was after a really bad experience which caused be to become afraid of almost everything, I was becoming very depressed, consequently, I was starting to give up on my dreams of college, of family, and of my future in general.

The U.S. should replace fossil fuel with renewable energy. There are many reasons that the U.S. can use renewable energy to improve the economy. First of all, renewable energy can have a more stable price. Unlike fossil fuel, renewable energy is a continual source of energy that will not be as demanded, and will not cause inflation. Next, using renewable energy is a key to having a clean and green environment. It will not cause pollution to the environment and will keep cities clean. Finally, the United States can provide more efficient jobs for unemployed workers. People will have more opportunities for jobs like installing or building any source of renewable energy. Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy can be more efficient because it will have a stable expense, it is a clean way to help the environment, and it can provide several jobs.

In this day and age, we have new energy sources that could be used to power our homes and transportation. Wind and solar power are used all over the world, but are still used far less than fossil fuels. Most would say it’s not reliable or it doesn’t make any profit. While both statements are true, it doesn’t mean we can’t make a better future using renewable energy. In fact, the only reason we don’t use renewables for everything is that we don’t want to change. The hard truth is we need to change. Fossil fuels are great right now, but if we run out, humanity must have another source of energy.

Solar energy always seemed to be good alternate because the sun is reliable and its power is astronomical. In one second the amount of solar energy that hits the earth is equivalent to an 8.0 earthquake and in one hour the sun hits the earth with enough energy to meet the demand of all energy consumption. So far in the past one hundred years humans have used two trillion barrels of oil, and in the next thirty we will use another trillion. This oil took millions of year to make. The sun, on the other hand, hits the earth with enough energy in 2 days to be equivalent to three trillion barrels of oil! Recall that the US consumes 25% of the world’s energy and only has less than 5% of the population. If America was covered in 2% solar cells it would meet the all energy means of the nation, and if covered in .3% then it would meet the electrical needs. The world needs 14 terawatts of energy per year to run.

For years man has relied on energy in order to be successful in life. The industrial revolution relied on coal for the new inventions brought into the world. Life as has never been the same since then. However since that time, there has been little done to improve on energy efficiency and humans still primarily rely on fossil fuels for energy. For over a hundred years the Earth has become more polluted and dirtier than ever before. Now, with new, innovative technology there is an opportunity to change that and to rely on renewable, cleaner sources of energy. The main source of energy for the world should be alternative energy instead of energy from fossil fuels.

Alternative sources are the only absolute way we can secure the safety of our environment. Everyday carbon monoxide is released into our air. This is creating holes in the ozone layer and exposing humans to deadly fumes (Bad Greenhouse, 1). More money available to scientists who study alternative fuels will allow them to do more extensive testing and research. Although the world is not yet running

Wind and solar energy are certainly the two most public-supported types of electricity, and there is basically no negatives to either of them. Their farms emit no greenhouse gases, there is very little danger

Alternative energy is a huge area of contention for a lot of people. The world currently relies so heavily on fossil fuels that switching to other forms of energy means that many people will lose jobs.