Is Tesla Solar Roof the Solution for Your House?

Tesla Solar Roof is ready to change the future and help consumers save more on their energy bills. Tesla announced in 2017 that they are launching the new Solar Roof and made people quickly become crazy about it. Their proposed solution requires to replace your old roof to a new Tesla roof which impresses with its sleek design, durability, and efficiency. Tesla positions its product on the premium category, promising impressive results on the long-term.

Elon Musk is already a figure in the industry, known for their energy projects. He used the people’s obsession for their house looking good and paired it with his interest in renewable energy sources and environmental protection. Therefore, Tesla Solar Roofs come with various tiles designs which seem to look better than any other solution on the market.

Are Tesla Solar Roofs another step into a better world or just a big name with nothing behind?

There’s no doubt that Tesla’s Solar Roof is unique. While in a conventional scenario, the solar panels are installed directly on the roof, Tesla does things a bit different. In their case, each shingle is actually a small solar panel, producing energy for your home. Therefore, your rooftop will look extremely elegant, being at the same time energy efficient.

However, there are still many questioning if this is going to be a breakthrough for the future or just a flawless marketing plan with nothing new to offer?

Tesla Solar Roofs PROs

  • Amazing design. Tesla did a great job in creating a unique and slick design for their solar rooftops. The solar panels are practically invisible. You can choose from 4 different tile designs which match to any type of home. In addition, Tesla is still not mass-producing. Therefore, their customers are part of an exclusive group who chose be part of the future before anyone else.
  • Extended durability. Tesla likes to play big and obtained several certifications for wind, fire, and hail protection. They obtained the highest scores in all these tests. So, these results show that their tiles are three times stronger than most traditional roofs.
  • Maximum warranty. The remarkable results received in all the tests they did allows Testa to offer a generous warranty. They offer a 30-year warranty for electricity production and weatherization. On the other hand, they offer a lifetime warranty for their tiles which means that you will be covered in case any defect or breakage appears.

The CONs

  • In comparison to a traditional rooftop, Tesla Solar Rooftop is more expensive. Even if you would choose to replace your rooftop to a traditional one with a solar array on it, the investment would still be lower than choosing Tesla’s solution. Accordin to the numerous assignment help reviews, this makes people think of the amortization and consider the price a critical point that they need to consider.
  • Tesla is already producing their rooftops in Buffalo Gigafactory, but it is still unclear when it will be available for the mass-market. Therefore, even if you consider that this is an investment worth your money, you will still have to wait until the product becomes available for you. For the moment, there is still a waitlist that Tesla needs to clear.

Tesla offers a premium rooftop solution which promises long-term benefits. It is a proven fact that the solar technology will provide enough energy for your entire house and save you a lot of money. However, you will need to also take into consideration the other aspects like the high price and availability issues.



The Environmentalists versus the Economists on Resources Conservation



The global population increased from 1.5 billion in the year 1900 to 6.1 billion in the year 2000. The statistics represents about 400% growth of the population in only one decade (Roser & Ortiz-Ospina n.p). Further, numerous studies forecast that population growth will continue increasing significantly in the future. For instance, by the year 2100, the population will have increased by 50% from the current 7 Billion to about 11 million. The main question that arises from the statistics is how the world can sustain such a population. The answer to the question is the exponential capitalism. The assertion introduces the arguments by the environmentalists that the land and animals should be protected through conservation and the economists’ perspective that it is more important to sell the land and wood to generate money for building and making other investments. The paper is a report on the two perspectives and holds that the economists are right in the pursuit of monetary gain for longer sustainability instead of protection and conservation of the natural resources.

The Environmentalists’ Perspective

The Environmentalists’ perspective argues that the environments should be conserved at all means. Animals and plants, particularly the endangered ones should be protected by all measures. The perspective has been supported by numerous environmentalists across the globe. Magdoff and Foster in their book “What every environmentalist needs to know about capitalism” express the importance of conserving the environment and how capitalism impedes the agenda. They argue that the conservation of the natural environment, especially land and the indigenous endangered species, poses the threat of climate change due to capitalism. Further, the book states that humans have led to the decline of the ecological value for the future generations especially through deforestation, soil erosion, and the pollution of soils to reduce their productivity. The authors use the works of pro-environment such as Plato to show the damage that capitalism has had on the environment. Ultimately, the authors propose that following all the ills of capitalism on the environment, the environmentalists should ensure that capitalism does not expand as its continued expansion is to the detriment of the environment.

Both the authors of the above article are environmentalists. Magdoff is a professor emeritus specializing in ecology, particularly plant and soil science at both Universities of Vermont and Cornell. Foster, on the other hand, is an editor at “Monthly Review” and is also a sociology professor at the University of Oregon. Moreover, the two authors are writers on environmental issues hence their credibility in addressing the issue is obvious. The book is influential as it documents all the perceived ills of capitalism that include climate change through pollution, fast and continuous depletion of natural resources, its greed for monetary gains that transgress planetary boundaries, and the potential of destroying the finite environment hence the elimination of the human life sustenance on earth. The points are well-articulated since they are backed up by facts on the same. Further, the authors show mastery in their discussion on the ills that capitalism has on the ecosystem.

The arguments that the authors of the article drive are relevant. Capitalism has indeed contributed to the severe degradation of the environment. Moreover, climate change is highly attributed to capitalistic tendencies such as pollution through industrialization. Nevertheless, the article does not give the reasons as to why the environment is important and should be conserved. It only concentrates on the disadvantages of the capitalistic tendencies across the world and ultimately fails in bringing out the reasons why capitalism should be abandoned for conserving the environment. It does not compare the sustainability in environmental conservation versus that which is promoted by capitalism. Moreover, the book contends that all capitalism is evil as it degrades the ecosystem thereby failing to acknowledge parts of capitalism that are life-sustaining and most importantly environmentally friendly. It also criminalizes all forms of capitalism even though some forms of it such as solar powered cars that do not gas but instead operate on renewable energies are environmental-friendly technological innovations. It shows that while in the article authors are credible in the topic they are addressing, they are bent on attacking capitalism and not supporting a healthy argument on why people and states should advocate for environmental conservation instead of fostering capitalism. Further, the authors do not offer a solution to the problem since eliminating capitalism or halting its progress are not feasible at all. Nevertheless, studies concerning the redefinition of environmental sustainability are coming up to help the environmentalists work together with economists towards a life-sustaining world. For instance, Chelstowski determines that redefining environmental sustainability is the only way to link individualism and social change and subsequently achieve long-term human-life sustainability.

The Economists’ Perspective

The Economists hold that the capitalism should be upheld as it is the main component of human sustainability. The human population keeps on increasing which means that the natural-stock or resources cannot continue sustaining the population fully. Therefore, the natural resources should be sold to provide capital stock that promotes human sustainability. The assertion is amplified by Ang and Van Passel in their work “Beyond the Environmentalist’s Paradox and the debate on the weak versus strong sustainability.” The article determines that while the environmentalists argue that the ecosystem depletion reduces human sustainability, the opposite is true since the increase in man-made capital increases human sustainability. The authors term it as a paradox since the expected reduced sustainability does not happen but instead capitalism promotes human sustainability. The article links the paradox to the weak sustainability and the strong sustainability discussion to show that indeed, the world should not forego capitalism for the sake of sustaining ecosystems.

The credibility of the article’s author can be ascertained and subsequently used to revert the admissibility of the presented evidence. Ang is a professional researcher while Van Passel is an economist assistant professor at the Hasselt University in Belgium. Their expertise is clearly visible in the articulation of the issue. The authors use numerous researches from different authors to drive the argument of the paper and finally prove the ecosystems depletion does not reduce human sustainability. For instance, the most important research they use is the study which documents the paradox between the environmentalists’ claims of depletion and its negative relation to sustainability. Clear evidence on the relation between ecosystems and sustainability shows that in the actual world, the ecosystem functions as a complement to capitalism and not that capitalism complements the ecosystems as perceived by the environmentalists. It means that the ecosystems cannot solely sustain the humans across the world, thereby making capitalism a necessity. Therefore, the research disputes the environmentalists’ arguments that the environment is the most important form of life sustenance in the world and its depletion is equal to human damnation. The researchers ensure that the material used to develop the research is derived from other articles and books hence the assertions are credible. They do not use their opinions to drive the work which further increases their credibility and that of their work.

Thus, the article’s arguments can be verified. The authors use a wide pool of resources to propel their argument on the economist paradox. The research shows clearly that although the ecosystems continue undergoing depletion, the human sustainability improves paradoxically courtesy of the progressive capitalistic tendencies. The use of the weak sustainability and the strong sustainability discussion is important in the elucidation of the matter. The weak sustainability proponents argue that natural capital is substitutable to the human-made capital. Thus, despite the depletion of the ecosystem, capitalism can generate a technology that will instead sustain the environment. However, the natural and human-made capital may be substitutable in an ideal world (empty world) since the natural capital is superabundant and the human-made capital is the limiting factor. In the real world (full world), on the other hand, the naturally occurring capital limits sustainability while the human-made capital is the abundant resource. The two arguments lead the researchers to conclude that while human-made capital is life-sustaining even with the depletion of the ecosystems, the ecosystems could still be preserved to complement it and make sustainability stronger. Further, the authors use their deduction to offer appropriate recommendations for a strong sustainability.

Comparison of the Perspectives

The two perspectives are critical hence there is a need to elucidate them as explicitly. The environmentalists’ perspective that the ecosystem should be conserved is good since with a good ecosystem the human sustainability will be strengthened. However, the proponents of the perspective do not bring out the perspective out in a clear way which limits its effect in the outside world. They are so bent on showing the ills of capitalism that they forget to explain why people should be inclined to forego capitalism and instead focus their energies on conserving the environment. Conniff (n.p), for example, shows that the environment should not be tampered with as putting a price on it will lead to reduced sustainability. The environmentalists point to issues like degradation through pollution, depletion of resources such as fossil fuels amongst other pertinent issues of capitalism. In doing so, they do not give a progressive argument for their course. Moreover, from the perspective, the environmentalists do not want to compromise their stance and can only settle on the eradication of capitalism or halt it from continuing. It shows that they do not appreciate the good things that capitalism brings into the equation such as man-made capital, which the ecosystems could not bring.

The economists’ perspective is explicitly stated and developed. The researcher first discredits the assertion that capitalism leads to reduced sustainability through the environmentalists’ paradox. The argument is convincing as it is not intended to discredit the importance of ecosystems. Instead, it focuses on establishing the best way to provide a strong sustainability. Therefore, the authors use the weak sustainability and the strong sustainability discussion where they determine that the two forms of capital, natural or man-made, do not substitute each other but act as complements. The article further notes that while capitalism promotes increased sustainability even when depleting the ecosystems, sustainability would be stronger when the environment is sustained. Therefore, the author gives the recommendations to complement natural and man-made capital in strengthening human life sustainability.


Conclusively, the economists’ perspective is the desirable one between the two. It is not only exhaustive in the analysis of the human life sustainability but seeks to optimize human life and achievement. It seeks to establish ways through which the human life can be sustained with the minimal impacts on the environment. Instead of concentrating on the dangers of sustained ecosystems, it shows that indeed the conservation of the environment is a good thing and should be pursued as a complement to capitalism. Further, it discredits the assertions that capitalism inhibits human life as postulated by the environmentalists. Instead, it shows the supremacy of man-made capital over the natural capital justifying the fact that land and wood should be sold to create more capital that will sustain a larger number of individuals than the natural resources would have sustained. The environmentalists’ perspective, on the other hand, is not satisfactory. Its proponents seek to discredit the importance of capitalism in the world. They concentrate on the ills of capitalism instead of focusing on the goods it brings to the society and finding ways to eliminate them. It appears that the environmentalists are trying to impose their perspective on the world by stating that the only way to ensure sustainability is through halting the progression of capitalism or eliminating it. Therefore, the economists’ perspective seeks more life sustenance in the globe as compared to the environmentalists’ perspective.

Reflection and Evaluation

The research produces reliable information on both perspectives under study. The first source is critical in its analysis of the issue of capitalism and its environmental degradation. It proposes the recommendations to do away with the issue. Similarly, the second source on the economists’ perspective is evaluative of the whole issue and seeks to establish the remedy for human life sustainability. While it determines that the depletion of the ecosystem does not affect sustainability as it paves the way for man-made capital which is more life-sustaining, it recognizes the role that the ecosystem conservation would play in strengthening sustainability. The economists’ perspective thus seems to be more objective on the issue as compared to that of environmentalists who are subjective and only focus on shooting down capitalism. For instance, Everett argues that the economic growth must go hand in hand with environmental conservation for strengthened sustainability. Moreover, the environmental regulations proposed by the environmentalists have dire financial consequences to capitalism which limit sustainability hence there is a need to eliminate them. While the two sources serve their purposes, the topic would be more comprehensive if more sources were used. Increased sources would bring out a common argument from each side, which would be the core of the debate between the two perspectives. Particularly, more researched articles on the environmentalists’ perspective would be important to the debate as they would establish measures through which the environment could be conserved without affecting the sustainability that results from capitalism.

Further Research

The debate between the environmentalists and the economists on environmental conservation and capital generation is contentious, which warrants further research on the issue. It is evident that the conflict in ideas and actions relating to the issue of the degrading nature of capitalism will not go away until it is addressed comprehensively. Thus, scholars from both divides should embark on articulate studies to ensure that they determine how the two can inter-relate and create stronger human life sustainability. The economists have already ventured into that route especially through the weak sustainability and strong sustainability discussion. Their efforts to reconcile capitalism started as early as 1996 as seen in the book “Economics and the Environment” by Curt L. Anderson that shows the importance of reconciliation of the two. However, they need to determine how they can continue being capitalistic in the best way and conserve the environment at the same time. At the same time, the environmentalists need to change their stance that capitalism cannot amount to any good towards the sustenance of life. In fact, they should recognize that all forms of capitalism are not environmentally depleting and chart a reconciliatory path using that fact. Ultimately, research will help in linking the two important life-sustenance mechanisms together.

The removal of benzene from groundwater


Benzene is harmful both to living organisms and the environment and should, therefore, be extracted from water. Phosphoric acid and activated carbon from the rice husk are used in this process. A rapid intake of benzene was observed. A thorough analysis of kinetic data using various techniques proved that the data fitted in pseudo-second order models. The results point to the fact that chemisorption took place. Additionally, rice husks were found to have better benzene adsorption capacity compared to other adsorbents.


Who did the research and where? The study was conducted in Egypt where the rice husks were locally available. Students from the King Saud University were responsible for carrying out the research.

How was the research conducted and with what materials and methods (experimentally or otherwise)? The study was conducted experimentally. The main materials used were rice husks and n=benzene. Rice hulls were obtained locally and their dimensions measured and recorded. A kinetic study was carried out based on the plotted adsorption profile. Techniques such as pseudo first-order, pseudo second-order, and the Elovich kinetic equation models were employed in the kinetic study. Informed judgment was passed based on a comparison between the experimental and theoretical values.

What were the results of the research? Single curves were obtained. These were smooth and continuous, and they led to saturation were obtained. Figures of the uptake of benzene indicate a quick uptake between zero to thirty minutes. The absorption rate slowly decreases up to the fortieth minute with no indication of uptake after that point.

How were they interpreted? The curves obtained signify possible monolayer benzene coverage on the surface of the rice husks. The curves also indicate that benzene absorption increases with time until it reaches a point of equilibrium after forty minutes.  The rapid absorption in the initial stages is a result of the availability of many vacant adsorption sites for benzene of the bulk solution. As time goes by, the number of vacant sites decrease hence benzene molecules compete for these available sites. It explains why the curve’s slope reduces.  Consequently, one can deduce that benzene adsorption on rice husks depends on the film diffusion process. The process is activated by the high concentration difference between the bulk solution (benzene solution) and the pores of the adsorbent (the rice husks).

Why is this study significant to biology and to humanity? Toxic Benzene is absorbed mainly through the skin and by inhalation. When benzene is applied to the surface, a large portion is absorbed while the rest rapidly volatilizes. When inhaled, about 47% of the inhaled vapors are not excreted by the lungs. Biologically, such statistics are useful for the formulation of preventive and curative measures. One can understand the effects of this toxic organic pollutant. Additionally, this study enables human beings to understand the importance of water treatment. After realizing the dangers of exposure to this pollutant, one becomes more cautious about the things they consume.


Any scientific experiment is a milestone to humanity. Scientists devote their time to perform tests whose results should be taken into account. Recommendations that come with these results should be accorded the seriousness that they deserve. Some of them could be life-changing. As is the case of the removal of benzene from rice water, such an experiment is enlightening to people who insist on using water that has not been treated.

5 Gadgets to Make Your Home More Eco-Friendly


Gadgets usually don’t have a good reputation when it comes to environmental protection. They use a lot of energy and there are still not enough alternatives to recycle them. In addition, their innovation pace is so big that people are tempted to change their gadgets very fast and so produce even more waste. However, there is some good news in all this situation. Producers have understood that it is important to conserve the natural resources and “go green”.

So, now you have the opportunity to use eco-friendly gadgets and protect the environment. If you are an eco-minded consumer, you will have plenty of options to choose from. Keep reading this article and you will find which are the top 5 eco-friendly gadgets that you can use at home.

Top 5 eco-friendly gadgets for your home

  1. Electricity-free espresso

Have you ever imagined how your life would look like without your coffee machine? Do you know that you can prepare a rich coffee with an eco-friendly gadget? You can now use the person-powered espresso maker. You don’t need any electricity or expensive coffee pods to prepare a strong espresso. Everything is in your hands. You are the one who chooses the coffee, the grind, and you will use your hands’ pressure to produce a coffee exactly how you like it. What is more, you will be able to prepare more than just espresso. If you are a fan of foamy cappuccino, then you can use the stainless steel frothier and prepare the best cappuccino ever.

  1. Bamboo speakers

Bamboo is considered one of the most sustainable materials. It can also be turned into an eco-friendly gadget that you can use in your home. Apple has developed the iBamboo, which consist of portable Bamboo speakers compatible with the iPhone 4 model and above. The wonderful thing about these speakers is that they don’t use any electricity at all. This material amplifies the sound without any additional technology. iBamboo speakers look extremely chic also. What is more, they are very simple to use.

  1. Solar chargers

Solar panels are known for their efficiency in reducing your carbon footprint and helping you save money on your energy bill. If you can’t afford to invest in a rooftop with solar panels, you can start by buying a solar panel charger. There are several models on the market which you can use to charge your laptop or phone with a battery of less than 13 watts. This is a portable charger and it isn’t bigger than an iPad. So, it will be very easy to carry it with you everywhere and save a lot of energy at the same time.

  1. Smart thermostat

The heating systems are some of the biggest energy consumers. Moreover, when you come back home after a long day, you will have to wait until your heating system does its work and you get a constant temperature in your room. With the eco-friendly thermostat, you won’t need to deal with all these anymore. Thanks to the smart thermostat you can fix the ideal temperature for your house and control it using an app installed on your smartphone. Thus, you will save a lot of energy and money. In addition, you will no longer return to a cold home, but to a cozy and welcoming one.

  1. Smart plugs

Wouldn’t it be great to control your plugged-in devices using an app on your phone? Now, you can choose a smart plug which helps you track how much energy your devices are using. This is an excellent method to keep your energy bill under control. What is more, you can use the app to obtain several reports, determining which are the biggest energy consumers.

Eco-friendly gadgets are more affordable than you would think. When you decide to buy such a device, you should take into consideration not only the paid price, but also what amount you save on the long-term. In addition, the positive effect you have on the environment is priceless.