As a purely hypothetical example, if three large cities could be powered by paving over Yellowstone and harnessing all its energy, would it be worth it?
I know you’re inclined to say “heck no”, but consider the alternatives — global warming, smog, acid rain, terrorism (in the case of foreign oil), etc. Geothermal energy is perfectly clean, but you lose the landscape to harness it.
More Pages:
- Solar Products: A New Way To Look At Global Warming? (6/17/2011)
- Solar Energy: What Are Some Negatives About Geothermal Energy? (7/21/2011)
- Solar Producer: Why Do People Fall For The Climate Change Hoax? (9/6/2011)
- Solar Energy: Geothermal Energy Will Bring Electricity In Cameroon? (9/19/2011)
- Solar Turbines: How Long Will It Take For Wind Turbines To Take Over And Provide The Energy To Power Our Country? (10/1/2011)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
That would be pretty expensive.
You can get a heat pump. There are pipes buried in your back yard about 3 feet down, since the ground never freezes past that point in most of America. The heat pump works like a backward air conditioner. It takes the heat out of the ground and pumps it into your house. And like the air conditioner, it’s pretty expensive to use. It’s very expensive to install.
That would be a bit extreme and possibly uneccessary with continual advancements in science along those lines.
Initially yes, I would be against it. But if compared with all other alternatives, I could be swayed.
Paving over Yellowstone would add to global warming!
In the long run I think it would be worth it. Although I think hardly anyone is going to want to pave over Yellowstone.
Yellowstone is one of the natural wonders of the world. It offers unparalleled beauty to the visitor. Though some may have to sacrifice, we need to protect the unique and spectacular land that is Yellowstone. Without Yellowstone . . .
Wait a minute. We’re talking about my lights, my city?
Sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice for the greater good. Round up the trucks and start laying asphalt!