If you were altered by a mad scientist so that you no longer derived your energy from food, but rather from gasoline, batteries or solar energy- which would you choose?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
LAKE CHAMPLAIN
THOSE WHO LIVE IN VERMONT, AS ME AND MINE DO, HOLD THE EASTERN SHORE IS THE BETTER OF THE TWO, BUT EVEN WE CONCEDE NEW YORKERS HAVE THE BETTER VIEW
10 comments:
solar. no contest.
Agreed, solar.
Solar.
Just like Superman!
i think solar is the answer because no matter how cloudy, we have the best chance of relying on that of the three.
I'm going with gas. Why? More power- that's why. I'm never gonna play for the skins using solar power. Between plays I'll run to the sideline and guzzle some of my favorite non-renewable energy source, and then go back and play on all 10 cylinders. I would run rough-shod over all of you solar powered sissies.
I wish that mad scientist would get his evil mitts on me. I don't think gasoline would be very fattening either (unlike solar energy)so I'd probably lose a lot of weight.
Bring on the pounds! I choose solar for a long life (at least until the sun explodes).
As asked, the question doesn't mention any differences in energy from the power sources. Like any machine, as long as the fuel tank is filled up, and regardless of what fills it, you can perform to the best of your innate ability. It's really just asking what form of power you find more attractive or convenient.
That's me.
However, petroleum-run engines do have more power than electric engines. More giddy-up.
But I will go with batteries because they are renewable, leave no residue and are not at the whim of cloudy days.
Also, they've made massive jumps in battery technology in the past 5 years alone.
No, you could easily build an electric-powered engine with more power than a petroleum-powered engine. Nothing in the makeup of the fuels limits the power that can be achieved; it is mostly dependent on the architecture and design of the engine itself.
Post a Comment