I've listened the lectures that is a topic of crisis energy.
However I have not been able to understand a sentence in one lecture. Here it is. "You can save more energy by conservation than you produce for the same money". What does speaker mean? How can she compare energy and money? If somebody understand the above sentence, please explain to me by rewriting it in another sentence structure that it is easier to understand.
I'm looking forward to hearing from you.
“Good evening, and welcome again to the ‘Michael Parkhurst Talkabout’. In tonight's progamme, we're looking at the problem of energy. The world's energy resources are limited. Nobody knows exactly how much fuel is left, but pessimistic forecasts say that there is only enough coal for 450 years, enough natural gas for 50 years and that oil might run out in 30 years. Obviously we have to do something, and we have to do it soon!
I'd like to welcome our first guest, Professor Marvin Burnham of the New England Institute of Technology. Professor Burnham.”
“Well, we are in an energy crisis and we will have to do something quickly. Fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) are rapidly running out. The tragedy is that fossil fuels are far too valuable to waste on the production of electricity. Just think of all the things you can make from oil! If you don't start conserving these things now, it will be too late. And nuclear power is the only real alternative. We are getting some electricity from unclear power-station already. If we invest in further research now, we'll be ready to face the future. There's been a lot of protest lately against nuclear power — some people will protest at anything — but nuclear power-stations are not as dangerous as some people say. It's far more dangerous to work down a coal-mine or on a North Sea oil-rig. Safety regulations are very strict.
If we spend money on research now, we could develop stations which create their own fuel and burn their own waste. In many parts of the world where there are no fossil fuels, nuclear power is the only alternative. If you accept that we need electricity, then we will need nuclear energy. Just imagine what the world would be like if we didn't have electricity — no heating, no lighting, no transport, no radio or TV. Just think about the ways you use electricity every day. Surely we don't want to go back to the Stone Age. That's what will happen if we turn our backs on nuclear research.”
“Thank you Jennifer. Now I'm very pleased to welcome Dr Catherine Woodstock. She is the author of several books on alternative technology.”
“Hello. I'd like to begin by agreeing with Jennifer. We can develop alternative sources of power, and unless we try we'll never succeed. Instead of burning fossil fuels we should be concentrating on more economic uses of electricity, because electricity can be produced from any source of energy. If we didn't waste so much energy, our resources would last longer. You can save more energy by conservation than you can produce for the same money. Unless we do research on solar energy, wind power, wave power, tidal power, hydroelectric schemes etc, our fossil fuels will run out, and we'll all freeze or starve to death. Other countries are spending much more than us on research, and don't forget that energy from the sun, the waves and the wind lasts for ever. We really won't survive unless we start working on cleaner, safer sources of energy.”
You can save more energy by conservation than you produce for the same money
The speaker is saying that it is more economical to conserve energy than it is to produce it.
If you spend $100 on conserving energy, you will have more energy than you would if you spent $100 on producing energy.
Hope that helps.