Energy is the number one environmental problem today. But we don't want to minimize our use of energy --- abundant energy makes possible civilization, especially our kind of high-technology civilization. So the question is: how can we maintain abundant sources of energy without ruining our environment? Here is some information that can help.
This post is under construction.
Pros and Cons of Some Energy Sources
| Source | Provides | Upside | Downside |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coal | Nearly 60% of electricity and 25% of total energy in the United States today; probably will not increase in % because of environmental effects | World’s most abundant fossil fuel; Many coal-fired plants are inplace; 250 years worth of fuel. | World’s most abundant fossil fuel; most polluting; along with nuclear the most dangerous; coal mining is a major environmental and human health problem. |
| Nuclear: Conventional | Today: 1/6 of the world's electricity. In the future: Known conventional nuclear reactor fuel will run out in about a century. | Doesn't produce greenhouse gases. | Most dangerous to people and environment; waste disposal an unsolved problem; power plants expensive and slow to build; expensive to run, and have very limited lifetimes. |
| Solar | More than the world uses or will ever use. | Nonpolluting and renewable; works now. | Needs improved grid and storage. |
| Wind | Texas and the Dakotas alone can provide all the electricity needed in the United States. | Nonpolluting and renewable; works now. | Needs improved electrical grid for distribution and new storage methods; some birds are killed flying into windmill blades; NIMBY (not in my backyard) problem: view and sound of windmills bothers some people. |
Pros and Cons of Energy Sources: More Information
| Source | Dangers | Who Gains | Who Loses |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coal | Global warming; acid rain; release of toxic metals and compounds harmful to human health, other life forms, and ecosystems, such as mercury, sulfur oxides. | Big Power and Coal Corporations. | Everyone and every ecosystem exposed to coal burning pollutants; global climate change; miners' health; land strip-mined. |
| Nuclear: Conventional | Wastes and spills remain very toxic for 10,000 years. | Previous investors in nuclear power. | People who live near and own property near the power plants; people subjected to radioactive wastes. |
| Solar | None. | Everybody. | Investors in conventional power. |
| Wind | Difficult to brake the blades; in very high winds, the machine can self-destruct. | All users of electricity. | Those who dislike living near windmill installations. |
Copyright © 2010 Daniel B. Botkin
From my book Powering the Future: A Scientist's Guide to Energy Independence, FT Press
kelly says
December 15, 2009 at 8:16 pmwhat about other energies like hydro power, and geothermal? There’s also biomass, I’d like to know stuff about those sources of energy too please.
Dan says
December 21, 2009 at 5:06 pmGood question. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I discuss these in my forthcoming book, “Powering the Future.” Briefly, low density geothermal — the heat stored in the ground below your feet, mainly sunlight that has been absorbed or transported downward by water and air, offers an inexpensive and widespread form of heating and cooling. This is gaining popularity and will be one of the least expensive and best heating and cooling energy sources. If you’re going to build a new house, look into this.
Hydropower: The experts agree that almost all the best sites for standard hydropower in developed nations are already in use. The U. S. Energy Department estimates that hydropower is likely to decrease as an source in the future rather than increase, because dams are being removed for environmental and safety reasons. The few hydropower sites in development in other parts of the world are causing a lot of discussion and environmental concern. So this is unlikely that water power will add signficantly to energy independence.
third demon says
February 3, 2010 at 2:40 pmwhat is with all this money and not having enough for energy? i say we find one element of energy and invest everything we into improving the way we use or how we use it until we have once more a reliable source to count on.
Daniel Estrada says
January 28, 2011 at 10:12 amwhat about coal
its a good resource but it kills everything due to mining and other stuff. cant there be a friendly element that is good and also healthy for the environment
mike says
January 12, 2012 at 1:08 pmcoal energy in my town provides jobs. for one, the coal is already mined. it is usually silt. the aftermath of processing coal. since its discovery the miners would put the silt in what they call silt wells from processesing coal like “rice” coal. this is what the cogens burn to make energy. this creats jobs. and in pa they aren’t tunneling into the ground like in the 1800’s. they strip mine and then reclamate the land back. they need bookkeepers, welders machine operators.mechanics. drivers. etc. who need doctors dentists gasoline groceries cars. etc. who need energy to run. clean up its exhaust. its a win for everyone.
John Thronton says
January 25, 2012 at 8:58 pmyou know, there is now a efficient way to get rid of nuclear wastes without doing any damage to the environment and nuclear power is the most efficient power system we can have, just there is so many stereotypes about it, no-one likes them
Mark Daume says
June 4, 2012 at 5:55 pmMany states can, and should, be following California’s lead in wind-powered energy. It does not cost a penny after connecting the necessary parts. To those who say that it’s unsightly, they don’t have to look at it. Don’t build homes next to it.
Jordan says
February 20, 2013 at 7:32 pmOkay, what about Algae biofuels? They work against global warming, can be hybridized with a coal plantation or oil refinery, provides high energy, and can eat nuclear waste. 🙂
Daniel Botkin says
February 24, 2013 at 12:20 pmYes, algae biofuels have their uses. I discuss these in Chapter 9 of Powering the Future: A Scientist’s Guide to Energy Independence. And in chapter 13 I recommend government development of these fuels. But they have a major limitation: water use. Right now, the Feds state that 49% of water use in the U.S. is to cool power plants (fossil fuel and nuclear). We are seriously overusing our fresh water aquifers. So in the long run, algae fuels will have a place, but the major of our nonfossil fuel energy is better coming from solar, wind, new hydroturbines (that float in a river and do not block fish passage) and ocean energy. The last is the farthest in the future.
webpage says
July 16, 2013 at 11:38 pmThanks to my father who informed me on the topic
of this blog, this webpage is genuinely awesome.