The world needs a sustainable energy source, there are no two ways about it. In my opinion, with the current infrastructure of the United States, the only way the US can generate enough energy effectively and efficiently is by combining nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and biofuels. Nuclear can generate a solid baseline in which solar can add on to during the day when energy usage is near its highest. The rest of the sources can add onto what is being produced by nuclear and can then match the energy fluctuations so we aren 't over or under producing. Also, having multiple power sources will help maximize the effectiveness of where we put them. For example, we would put solar panels on top of houses that face the sun, or in deserts. Wind
…show more content…
If we were to do this over the course of 73 years until 2088 when we will most likely run out of petroleum [ecotricity], then the cost of the total project will become divided. Of course, biofuels would be the first thing to be established because we need to take care of the environment. Also, as more energy producing sources are created we can stop buying as much for petroleum not only because it will help offset the cost of building the new energy producing sources, but because we no longer need as much. In the Margoltopia case, we were given all the resources we needed. This included space, money, and most importantly the resources needed to power and build the sources. But for the case of the US, we need to be realistic. For nuclear, we would need around 4000 square miles and access to water. This land will cost a lot, unless we build these plants in areas where people don 't live, like the deserts. Same thing with solar, just place majority of them in places that are unpopulated and on top of houses. Biofuels can be placed in small modules in a lot of places. Wind turbines aren 't the most unsightly things, and a certainly better than telephone towers, so they can be placed around more residential coastal areas. When thinking about the future of the world, we need to do what we have to do to keep it clean, or at least not as
If we were to do this over the course of 73 years until 2088 when we will most likely run out of petroleum [ecotricity], then the cost of the total project will become divided. Of course, biofuels would be the first thing to be established because we need to take care of the environment. Also, as more energy producing sources are created we can stop buying as much for petroleum not only because it will help offset the cost of building the new energy producing sources, but because we no longer need as much. In the Margoltopia case, we were given all the resources we needed. This included space, money, and most importantly the resources needed to power and build the sources. But for the case of the US, we need to be realistic. For nuclear, we would need around 4000 square miles and access to water. This land will cost a lot, unless we build these plants in areas where people don 't live, like the deserts. Same thing with solar, just place majority of them in places that are unpopulated and on top of houses. Biofuels can be placed in small modules in a lot of places. Wind turbines aren 't the most unsightly things, and a certainly better than telephone towers, so they can be placed around more residential coastal areas. When thinking about the future of the world, we need to do what we have to do to keep it clean, or at least not as