Forums → WEPR → Most Suitable Energy Sources
| 41 | 10988 |
Right, since I have a geography exam in... about 30 minutes, I thought I might as well kill that time. I want to know what people think is the safest, and efficient, energy source. Without energy, I wouldn't even be able to use this computer!:
The use of the sources of energy available on this planet has allowed us to advance in many ways. Without these sources of energy, the planet would be a lot darker. Imagine having to use candles as a light source every night! Oh, how dull life would be, without electricity to power your computer, without petrol to drive your car! The use of energy has changed through the years, with more appropriate sources being discovered.
Humans have gone from using the earliest, primitive windmills to the use of fossil fuels and other more suitable sources today. There are many sources of energy, which can be classified into 2 groups: Renewable Energy and Non-Renewable Energy. Renewable Energy is energy that can be produced again in a short period of time. Non-Renewable Energy is energy that cannot be produced in a short period of time, and is being depleted.
Energy plays an exceptionally large role in the development of countries. It is always important to have alternative sources of energy for each developing country, especially if the source they are currently using is non-renewable, oil, for instance.
All developing countries need more than one source of energy. Let us take the United Arab Emirates as our example for this thread, shall we? The UAE is a special case as it is advancing at incredible speed. The projects that this country is working on are a great help to advertising the UAE, but they are also very expensive, and that is forcing the UAE to export its primary source of energy for money.
Although the UAE is thinking and working on solving this problem before its too late, they clearly are not paying enough attention to the risks involved here. The UAE does not use any form of renewable energy, and lacks any alternative energy sources that would independently support the country.
Examining some sources of energy:-
Non-Renewable:
*Oil (Petroleum):
A few petroleum products are ethane, diesel fuel, fuel oils, gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, liquid petroleum gas and natural gas. Petroleum is obviously an energy source that can be relied on, but it does have its disadvantages. The cost of extracting the oil is large, and can damage the environment. Another feared risk of using petroleum is the oil spills, transporting the petrol is a large risk on its own! Petroleum has also been associated with global warming; burning the oil produces carbon dioxide which contributes to global warming.
*Natural Gas:
Natural gas consists mainly of methane. Natural Gas is used for a lot of the things that petroleum is used for, only it is not as efficient, but healthier to the environment. It can be used for generating electricity and hydrogen. It is also used as a cleaner alternative for gasoline and diesel in some automobiles. Natural gas is also used in homes, for common tasks, some ovens, cloth dryers, cooling and heating systems operate on natural gas. Even aircrafts have began using natural gas! Like all other sources, natural gas also has a disadvantage, although it is colourless and odourless, leaks may result in a fire or explosion, which can sometimes be extremely dangerous.
*Coal:
Coal is a fossil fuel formed in ecosystems. It is mainly used as a fuel to produce electricity and heat. We consume 6.2 billion tons of coal every year, 75% of that coal is used for producing electricity. 40% of the production of electricity uses coal. If we continue to take coal from its deposits, using all our modern technologies, that coal would be enough to support us for 300 years, if the consumption levels do not increase, that is. A few disadvantages include the release of carbon dioxide and methane from coal burning. Coal burning also produces acid rain. Mining of coal interferes with groundwater. Mining coal also makes the land useless for other things.
Renewable:
*Solar:
Solar Energy is the energy collected from sunlight. Solar energy can be used to generate electricity using PV cells or concentrated solar power. It can also be used to heat buildings directly. It is also used for heating, in ovens.
*Wind:
Wind power is the most rapid growing renewable energy source, but provides little energy, less than 0.5 of global energy. The technical potential of wind energy is said to be 5x the total global energy production. A disadvantage is that wind strength varies and therefore this source of energy cannot be relied on for continuous power.
I believe these energy sources would all prove to be suitable ones. However, I have come to the conclusion that countries should use Natural gas as a primary energy source. Although it is not as efficient as other sources (such as petroleum,) it is a reliable energy source which is a safe source for maintaining a clean environment. Despite the risks of explosion, this is still a good energy source. It would greatly aid in getting rid of all the pollution.
I know that governments is aware of this problem and are trying to solve it, but this should be treated as a high priority problem that needs to be solved as soon as possible, before theyâre out of time. Now is not the time to be planning for gigantic projects that would cause more problems, this is the time to solve the problem that has been waiting to happen since oil was first discovered!
I have decided that natural gas would act as the finest energy source. As it is the least damaging to the environment and in fact, a lot cleaner than the energy sources used currently. Risks from transporting petroleum are also more dangerous than the risks from natural gas. The only downside to using this is that it is less efficient than petroleum, and is a non-renewable energy source. When compared to other sources, natural gas would prove to be the right alternative.
Now it's your turn to decide what source would be most suitable! Go on...
*watches thread die*
I'm sorry if this post is incoherant - I don't have enough time to check for mistakes.
Proofread plz kthxbai.
-Skyla <3
- 41 Replies
You forgot the best energy source; nuclear fusion. Takes the least space to produce and use and is the second most environmentally friendly of all energy source(depending on mining procedures). Wind energy is a close second, it takes more land to produce but is best for the environment. Natural gas would be better than petrol, but only for cars and personal transportation, which it must be hoped will become obsolete. Which would be due to the number of trains increasing, as public transportation is cheaper and freight trains would cost less to transport than semis. I would also expect the trains to rely on electricity which would be cheaply generated by windmills and nuclear fuel. Another note about natural gas, methane, which constitutes most of it is up to 50x more effective as a greenhouse gas as CO2; as it is invisible, it likely often leaks and no one notices. You could also harvest methane from methane clathrate in a pinch though.
@necromancer:
As I said, the wind strength varies, therefore it is difficult to get continuous power from wind.
Yes, indeed, natural gas leaks are hard to detect, but they are still less destructive than petrol leaks.
I did forget to mention nuclear energy, pardon me :\\ I was in a rush when I posted this.
I also forgot to mention geothermal energy, thanks for the contribution, ngfan14.
-Skyla <3
I thought that natural gas was commonly given odor via various aromatic particles so that one could detect it. At least, in school labs :P
Otherwise I guess we'll have to keep using them parrots. They've commonly been in use in the coal mines since yonks, seeing as they're several thousand times more sensitive to natural gas- if they catch so much as a whiff they'll keel over. So when the parrot in the mine dies, clear the heck out!
Did you really have to post that, Strop?
Now I'll have them animal-lovers bashing me for suggesting natural gas as the most suitable energy source.
Here are my thoughts...
Wind Power
Probably one of the best ways to produce energy, but one turbine produces very little energy. You need quite a few to power a substantial amount of homes. Also they can be an eyesore on the landscape. A positive is that farmers can benifit from having a windfarm on their property. Not only can they get free electricity, some governments are willing to pay them to use the land.
Another negative that people say about wind farms is that they are dangerous for birds. However, statistics show that more birds are killed by pet cats each year than by wind turbines.
Also, you need to put the wind turbines in a very windy place...
I think it would be good to put them in Antartica...it is windy there!
Nuclear Energy
I am not a fan...but Australia should be. It is very clean, and Australia has the best quality plutonium and uranium in the world, and a large amount of it.
Nuclear power is good idea, but it has risks. A meltdown could destroy entire cities!
That is all I will write for now...I know most about Wind Power as I did an assignment last year!
KingRyan
*cough splutter*
Sorry Skyla, but that bit of trivia just came across my mind...and I tend to speak my mind! To the animal lovers (such as myself), I'd introduce a bit of perspective: that one parrot can save hundreds of human lives. It's little wonder that the miners were very fond of whichever parrot graces their mines...wait, why have I been saying parrot...
Also why have I been speaking in the present tense. Have I? I meant past. I don't think canary birds have been used in mines for nearly 20 years.
As for nuclear energy and Australia, our main issue is exactly what do we do with this nuclear waste?
I agree with you Strop. Where to put the nuclear waste?
The best idea would be to jetison it! Launch it into space and forget about it! So what if it crashes into a planet and destroys an ancient civillisation of aliens. It wouldn't be our problem anymore until they came and attacked us...!
A serious idea would be to put it into orbit. That way it could just float around the earth!
KingRyan
*slips into naysayer mode*
I think I refuted slinging garbage into space for similar reasons- with nuclear waste most of these issues are several hundred-thousand times graver:
1) It takes a lot of fuel to jettison anything of significant mass into space.
2) If something goes wrong with the launch (and rocket launches go wrong on a disconcertingly frequent basis relative to number of flights), the resulting spillage and distribution of waste could cause a nuclear holocaust of devastating proportions.
3) Orbits are also a bad idea. They may be calculated quite well but this is no guarantee as every orbit suffers some form of decay- satellites usually burn up on re-entry. Several hundred megatons of depleted uranium-238 rods might...do something else. Namely what I described in 2.
It would be nice if we could just pass the problems on, I suppose :P But unfortunately even if there weren't the ethical "that's just not cool, dude" arguments, our ability to pass the buck is limited by practical concerns that concern us!
I think all natural sources such as, wind, tides, solar, thermal are all the best. There are so many ways we can implement devices for harnessing these. With solar, we don't only have to use solar panels. there are dish like devices that concentrate solar radiation into a direct beam, to boil water in order to run steam powered turbines. With tides, we would just stick some turbines in the opening bay, or a man made bay, and when the water comes up it rushes through spinning the turbine, and when it goes down, it does the same. Wind energy is extremely clean and easy to implement. We could even put wind turbines in the ocean, we have all those oil rigs out there that have expired!! Why not throw some wind mills on top?
I think all natural sources such as, wind, tides, solar, thermal are all the best.
I agree!
In some of the more windy places, they can install wind turbines that can power entire towns. It's clean energy, and mother nature does all of the work.
Harnessing the tides would be a fantastic way to get energy as well. On a good tide, there is so much water flowing in and out of bay and harbors that the potential for harnessing power is huge.
We don't know how long fossil fuels are still going to be around. So it doesn't make sense to focus on it. Especially when we have such reliable and green ways to naturally procure energy. There will always be wind, there is always sun, and the tides are always moving.
Indeed, but we cannot control natural forces.
It's always a benifit if we can control our energy source. I can't think of a place where it's always windy/sunny. Solar Thermal uses toxic chemicals when generating electricity. Not just that, but the PV cells take way too much space. If you wanted to 'Go Solar' and make your entire house run on solar power, without cutting down on your use of electricity, then there would be no space outside, it would be full of PV cells.
Another negative effect of using Solar Energy is that manufacturing photovoltaic cells uses toxic materials. Having said that, it's still a cleaner alternative to generating electricity as there is no pollution involved, and uses a renewable energy source.
-Skyla <3
You know, I've had a bit of silly speculation: Wind power depends on the property of resistance. If we built many windpower stations, would it be possible that we might actually affect ecosystems or climate patterns to any significant degree via the turbulence and disruption to airflow that this might cause?
Just a thought. I have no idea how one would do the math, though.
Skyla, that is a wonderful point. There are certain places that can harness more than one of those energy sources. But most places will have one strong 'force of nature' around them. The Pacific Northwest has Hydro Power, along with the west coast, and california also has amounts of solar power and wind power. In the great plains, it is very windy. Had it not been, the dust bowl would never have happened. In the South it tends to be sunny most of the time, and on the East coast they have all the water they can eat.
Of course, there are always changes on the planet, and one part or the other might run out of energy. It's hard to know waht will heppen. But, like it was said before, there are certain problems with each source of power.
I know a constant force of nature!
We should totally construct aether generators- they'd be like wind turbines only they'd be moved by the movement of the Earth through space. Practically free power!
Oh, wait...phooey on Michelson and Morley, and especially phooey on Einstein. You guys totally ruined that party.
You must be logged in to post a reply!