Instead of spending 75 billion dollars a year on H3
Instead of spending 75 billion dollars a year to just get the H3 back to the earth, where we do not yet posses the technology to convert H3 into usable energy, why don't we spend even half of that energy and reinvest it into your current fossil fuel alternatives, which account for over 7% of the earths used energy.
CONTEXT(Help)
-
Ells, Z Negative Map for Individual Debate »Ells, Z Negative Map for Individual Debate
▲
U.S.F.G. should increase it efforts to develop the moons resources »U.S.F.G. should increase it efforts to develop the moons resources
▲
The USFG should increase the development of energy from the moon  »The USFG should increase the development of energy from the moon
▲
We would no longer need Fossil fuels as a primary energy source  »We would no longer need Fossil fuels as a primary energy source
▲
The moon has plenty of clean usable energy »The moon has plenty of clean usable energy
▲
The cost for mining and converting H3 is to expensive  »The cost for mining and converting H3 is to expensive
▲
The money invested in converting H3 could be returned  »The money invested in converting H3 could be returned
■
Instead of spending 75 billion dollars a year on H3
+Comments (0)
+Citations (0)
+About