- drawbacks - very expensive - even though the energy is free the installation of solar panels and the cost of replacing the solar panels is very high at the end of their useful life.
- only available when the Sun shines and requires storage or backup for when the Sun does not shine
Wind - benefits - same as solar
drawbacks - only available when the wind blows and requires storage or backup for when the wind does not blow
Hydro - benefits - same as solar and wind plus it does not require storage or backup
drawbacks - reserviors require large amounts of land in some cases
Coal - benefits - cheap and even though it is finite, proven reserves will last hundreds of years
drawbacks - it is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide of any source of electricity
Natural gas - benefits - less greenhouse gas emissions than coal and may be used as a backup for wind or solar power
drawbacks - it is a finite resource and still produces some greenhouse gas emissions
Nuclear -benefits - zero emissions and lower operating cost than coal or natural gas
drawbacks - requires large economies of scale for reactors which have been comercialized so far
- radioactive waste
- many people have an irrational fear of nuclear power.
For the near term, solar wind, hydro, nuclear and possibly geothermal energy need to be developed. Coal plants need to be phased out as soon as alternatives are in place and natural gas needs to be restricted to a backup for solar and wind. As long as coal is still used as a source of electrictity, solar and wind could be alternatives to coal or to nuclear, but not both. Nuclear power must be embraced until coal is no longer used to produce electricity.
Moe
What resources does solar power use up? Silicon is recycleable and the factories where solar cells are made could be solar powered.
Oh come on teach, it is Sunday and yahoo answers has so many fun question to answer....
For example "According to James Hansen we need to first establish a Governmental controlled carbon tax" Any reasonable person would know it would be insane to allow for profit institutions to control the taxes rather then the peoples representatives... But lets dig a little deeper and we can see that what Hansen was proposing is a tax on fossil fuels and offsetting this tax increase by decreasing personal income tax. Hansen expects the free market to react to this shift in taxation by reducing the amount of fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy sources.
But the poster does prove the theory that climate change deniers are either extreme free marketeers, conspiracy theorists, or as is often the case here on yahoo answers, both.
According to James Hansen we need to first establish a Governmental controlled carbon tax. He would also like to keep raising the price of this carbon tax to a point where no one can afford to use carbon based fuels. This is found in a letter written to Barack Obama. I do believe this is the plan of the UN and its "Global Warming" advocate child (IP CC). We know that Global monetary Elites control the banking systems all around the world so it doesn't surprise me that this is what you want. You've been advocating Governmental controls since I've been here. The history of global banking is well documented and fact-based in a YouTube video called "The Money Masters". I suggest that you view it for a better understanding of how the world works.
Bio-diesels and other bio-fuels are carbon based, so they won't be an option. What does this leave us?
When climate science and its biased scientists (Government paid) will start being honest with the general public and confess the fact that they don't completely understand how our climate works, only then will we understand our future energy direction.
Here are at least 3 things climate scientists are having problems with in determining the outlook of future climate states. I'll start with just 1 :
1) Inferences about climate and atmospheric composition extending back as long as 400,000 years. These and other proxy data indicate that the range of natural climate variability is in excess of several degrees C on local and regional space scales over periods as short as a decade. Temperature variations at local sites have exceeded 10°C (18°F) in association with the repeated glacial advances and retreats that occurred over the course of the past million years. It is more difficult to estimate the natural variability of global mean temperature because large areas of the world are not sampled and because of the large uncertainties inherent in temperatures inferred from proxy evidence.
**You continue to reject this aspect of the "big picture" because you reject anything that is "in conflict" to your cause.
Let's not forget the 1 degree C spike in global temperatures during the period 1997-1998. Science seems to forget their conclusion concerning El Ninos during that time.
2) . The responses of atmospheric water vapor amount and clouds probably generate the most important global climate feedbacks. The nature and magnitude of these hydrologic feedbacks give rise to the largest source of uncertainty about climate sensitivity, and they are an area of continuing research. The true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of cloud feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity. On the other hand, evidence from paleoclimate variations indicates that climate sensitivity could be higher than the above range, although perhaps only on longer time scales.
3) Climate also responds in a systematic way to climate forcings, but the response can be slow because the ocean requires time to warm (or cool) in response to the forcing. The response time depends upon the rapidity with which the ocean circulation transmits changes in surface temperature into the deep ocean. If the climate sensitivity is as high as the 3°C mid-range, then a few decades are required for just half of the full climate response to be realized, and at least several centuries for the full response. Such a long climate response time complicates the climate change issue for policy makers.
Who cares about the benefits and drawbacks when you have already done everything you can to advocate against any use of fossil fuels? It's a question from your (hip)ocracy!
Prico - Your ignorance of what I am saying is unbelievable! When you understand the connection between the UN and Central Banking around the world and its ties with the issue of "Global Warming", only then will you understand that our elected representatives have their hands tied anyway. Our laws are set in stone behind the Federal Reserve Bank. Watch the video and you may find some clues. Good Luck!
I'm confident that you must discover everything related solar power at www.gogreensolarwho.info.
solar-positive because it is renewable and anybody can set it up if they can afford it-however it doesnt work in bad weather.
nuclear-can produce a lot of energy compared to other renweable source-however an accident is fatal e.g. chernobyl and fukushima.
coal-cheap and can produce lots of energy-however unrenewable and contributes to enhanced greenhouse gas effects.
small list but hopes this helps ;D
The benefits are determined by the cost and the drawbacks are evident by idiot answers claiming solar uses no resources. I don't claim to know what our futures energy source will be but I know it's not going to be determined by government policy or some idiot who thinks solar uses no resources or a fool who thinks government mediocrity can drive innovation in an effort to save the world.
Climate Realist - I think you need to look up the definition of resource. Here is one - A stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function.
Problem is buracracy and secret agendas controling energy. Don't mater what you want if you are ill informed and it goes against someone elses plan who's got the next 50 years already figured out and paid for.
A.J. WARNING :
I would like everyone to list every major electricity source (eg. solar, nuclear, biomass, coal, etc) that they can think of, and mention at least one positive and one negative aspect of each. Feel free to use relative or absolute aspects (eg. "cheaper than nuclear", "emits soot") Also, feel free to group them if it's more convenient
Then, please briefly describe roughly what energy mix you think we should be using, say, 50 years from now, either in your own country or in the world as a whole.
