PV Gap

Kent Said:

If France can, why can't we?

We Answered:

Here is why we can't: the people who support alternative energy are incredibly ignorant of the costs of producing such alternative energy, and believe in magical thinking--that you can get something for nothing.

For example, solar power from photovoltaic cells is currently incredibly inefficient. Wind turbines take up acres and acres and are incredibly dangerous to birds and the environment. Yet, we see these technologies (which have yet to be practical) promoted and hyped over proven technologies like coal and nuclear.

Ignorant people will talk about how much they fear radiation from a nuclear plant, yet the fact is that burning coal spews out far more radiation. These same people will also deliberately expose themselves to radiation while vacationing at the beach and suntanning.

So the reason we won't see renewed dedication to nuclear power, no matter how logical and correct your arguments are: Ignorance.

The laws of thermodynamics point out that essentially, you can't get something for nothing. Increased order in one area is at the cost of increased disorder in another. To make any sort of alternative energy, it has to have a cost, whether that's huge amounts of land, dead birds, or a contaminated environment. The nice thing about nuclear is that the disorder is incredibly concentrated, and simply requires the desire to deal with spent fuel rods--much easier than cleaning up the entire atmosphere or wasting land that could be used for growing food (or just being forest or grasslands).

You are entirely correct in your arguments, but I don't hold out much hope for the U.S. under this administration and the brainwashed population which has been brainwashed into magical thinking.

Jeanette Said:

Can you help me summarize this agriculture article please?

We Answered:

Whew, that's a lot of words. But I'll try my best. Alrighty, here goes:

Do you think that capturing electricity is impossible? What about stopping lightning before it strikes? Well, think again.

At the American Chemical Society, scientists such as Fernando Galembeck have been researching how electricity builds up and spreads in the atmosphere to continue with their goal of creating devices that can prevent lightning. Using earlier theories of scientists, Galembeck's team discovered hygroelectricity, or humidity electricity. In this process, water in the atmosphere creates electrical charges and transfers them to objects it comes in contact with.

Galembeck added that it might be possible to create cells that could harvest hygroelectricity and use it as a power source. They would work more efficiently in humid areas, of course. Galembeck also stated that a similar approach could be taken for lightning, placing hygroelectrical panels on buildings to drain electricity out of the sky. Well, we'll just have to see, but these bright ideas could be the entrance to an even brighter future.

How do you think the information in this article will affect agriculture or the environment?

I think it will improve the environment. Since people wouldn't need to use electricity from power plants, less coal would be used and less CO2 would be released into the atmosphere. Then the air would be less polluted.
(I'm not quite sure what that question meant, but I hope it was close.)