Amory Lovins

Guido was a seagull that grew up on the wrong side of the tracks in Aberdeen, Scotland. This area was not an ideal setting to raise a family of seagulls, however, his parents did the best they could with what they had. His parents were poor and had to beg to have enough food to feed their flock, but young Guido did not know any different. He always had food and shelter while his world remained small and familiar. As Guido started to mature, he met other seagulls in his neighborhood. He was so

In his article “How America Can Free Itself of Oil-Profitability,” Amory Lovins addresses the many different issues associated with excessive oil consumption and the risks versus the benefits. Amory Lovins is a physicist, environmental scientist, writer, and Chairman/Chief Scientist of the Rocky Mountain Institute. He has written numerous research articles arguing for the use of renewable energy and alternatives for oil. Lovins also regularly gives presentations to other environmentalists discussing

Barbara, pg. 413)      My argument in favor of opening up oil drilling in ANWR is based on two things: the questionable conclusions that the Lovins article draws from past energy policies and the latest factual and no-so factual data they had available to them at the time. I believe that given the world we live in today, the principles that the Lovins and other use to argue against oil drilling in ANWR can be applied to argue why oil drilling should be open in the tract of land in Alaska. By drilling

The United States is known for its excessive use of energy. I remember in class, SOME of our classmates that were from other countries, were shocked at how much energy we use and waste. This is a clear indication of the US’s attitude towards energy use, which is that we take it for granted. When I went to Ukraine, I remember how limited energy use was. I was only around 10 or 11 and I was shocked that nobody turned their porch lights on at night and I was even more so shocked to find out that most

Nuclear power has been one of the largest contributors of energy for the past fifty years. With the end of World War II, research into nuclear energies shifted away from war applications to simply using it to power the world. Nuclear power was regarded as the never ending energy source that would bring an end to energy problems and power the whole world. For many years it seemed to work with no problems; however, that was a short lived reality. As problems with nuclear energy came to light, many

such as the sun or wind, making it the better option. Even though nuclear power has many advantages, some may say that they monetary costs and health risks are just as important. Analysis showed that “nuclear construction costs about tripled” (Lovins) in the five years after 2003. Because construction costs were higher, the plants had to sell the energy at higher prices as well. The key thing to note is that everyday, new technologies are being made to cut many of the costs associated with this

an inherent aesthetic appeal that makes hydrogen cars so attractive to the casual environmentalist: By means of fuel cell conversion technology, they produce electricity to power the motor while exhausting only water. But Hypercar notwithstanding, Lovins opines that the future of automotive energy lies within hydrogen. He reasons that in addition to cleaner exhaust, hydrogen can be catalyzed from numerous sources and can be transported far more safely than gasoline. However, some pundits are concerned

Energy renaissance versus worldwide destruction, these two theories present common views regarding the utilization of nuclear power. Few energy resources have been spoken with such notoriety by some and praised as the final energy solution by others than nuclear power. However, the United States must increase its use of nuclear power in order to cover rising energy demand caused by the global energy crisis. In addition, nuclear power is and will be an important factor in combating atmospheric increases

Nuclear power plants are a safe, clean and reliable source of energy production. They are uniquely qualified to meet the growing demand for energy in the USA. It is estimated that the demand for power will grow two and a half percent per year. Even if the demand for energy didn’t increase in the future but stayed where it is nuclear would still be the best choice for power production. Nuclear costs less and is environmentally cleaner than coal, which currently supplies approximately fifty percent

(Estrella- Herrera, Luis R.) Although, it may seem biased, in a quote stated by Amory and Hunter Lovins they mention that “ Genetically engineered crops were created not because they’re productive, but because they’re patentable. Their economic value is oriented not toward helping subsistence farmers to feed themselves, but toward the already