Topic: Are Renewable Energy resources the future? - page 2. (Read 896 times)

That still doesn't solve the issue of affordability. The Tesla Model S costs around $100,000. This is around 3 times the price of a similar automobile which runs on gasoline. Personally I don't afford paying up to 50% more for an EV. But 200%? That doesn't make any sense for me. They need to reduce the cost and make the vehicles more affordable. And for that, they need to dump the current Lithium-Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminium batteries and move towards a battery technology that uses less expensive metals. I am afraid that it may not happen anytime soon.

It is not just about EV or anything, it is both a symbol plus it is a much better car. If it was only EV that you are looking for, then you can get a lot cheaper cars, you can find hybrid for as low as 10-20k, that means there are cars with 80% discount on a tesla model S, and if you would like to, you can buy them, and yes 50% cheaper EV that is a lot better. However tesla is a symbol, just like how iphone was the most expensive phone you could get for a long time, it is getting closer these days but still it is the most expensive one, why? Because it is a symbol and not just the product.

If your aim is only to get an EV then you can do so cheaper but if you want to have a symbol (no not renault) then you could pay more and get a tesla. Plus the fact that it is so much better is a big plus, it literally drives itself, how many EV cars can drive itself on the road?

That still doesn't solve the issue of affordability. The Tesla Model S costs around $100,000. This is around 3 times the price of a similar automobile which runs on gasoline. Personally I don't afford paying up to 50% more for an EV. But 200%? That doesn't make any sense for me. They need to reduce the cost and make the vehicles more affordable. And for that, they need to dump the current Lithium-Nickel-Cobalt-Aluminium batteries and move towards a battery technology that uses less expensive metals. I am afraid that it may not happen anytime soon.

Agree to this and there are only few charging station of it and really you cant drive really really long distance. Regarding renewable energy there are a lot of people now a days in their homes buying a solar power light since it could save energy and also lets say that it could make the environment better. I think the future in renewable energy in terms of electricity is really great, but the gasoline powered vehicle is the next problem tho

Agree to this and there are only few charging station of it and really you cant drive really really long distance. Regarding renewable energy there are a lot of people now a days in their homes buying a solar power light since it could save energy and also lets say that it could make the environment better. I think the future in renewable energy in terms of electricity is really great, but the gasoline powered vehicle is the next problem tho

For electricity generation, now many forms of renewable energy are more cost-effective when compared to the non-renewable sources. Cost of generating solar power and wind power has gone down by 20x or more during the last two decades. But the main issue is not with electricity, but with automobile fuel. This is the problematic area. The conversion of gasoline driven vehicles to EVs are not happening in a big way, because the EVs have a limited range, and they are much more expensive when compared to the gasoline driven vehicles.

A complete switch from fossil fuels to renewable is highly unlikely within 2050, zero emissions may sound ideal but I'm not sure on how it can be achieved. I hope I'm proved wrong, but the time period looks quite small for something so large.

In my opinion, it'll be a success even if fossil fuel usage is reduced by 50%. Renewable sources sound like a panacea, but I'm not exactly sure on how easy and efficient the transition can be.

Energy is a really complicated topic. There's a massive number of ways you can combine production and distribution, and figuring out the optimal balance for any geographic area requires a lot of surveying and understanding of the local environment, natural resources, as well as trade relationships between neighbouring countries.

I think renewables will be forced onto consumers in the developed world, especially in the West. This isn't inherently a bad thing, but depending on some of the factors I mentioned above, there will be pos/neg consequences at smaller geographic scales. For example, NYC just decommisioned a nuclear power planet, leading to blackouts throughout the state and NYC. California also voted to decommission Diablo Canyon, and they have no plan for an alternative source of energy, they just state it has to be carbon neutral. These are (in my opinion) poor choices, and will have extremely negative consequences regardless of the renewable energy source that may or may not fill in the gap.

Poor excuses for switching to renewables aside, there are legitimate problems with renewables. They're still much more unreliable than oil/natural gas, storage of excess energy is an issue (one that Bitcoin mining can actually help alleviate), and the actual production of things like solar panels require rare earth materials and metals which are mined in developing nations with poor regulatory oversight. Often, the extraction and purification of these materials results in environmental degradation that goes unchecked in parts of the world where end consumers tend to not care about (so much for "clean" energy). These issues will be resolved or become insignificant enough to ignore over time, but they exist for now and it's silly to pretend renewable energy is some holy grail that we can just have for free (which is how politicians treat it).

So in the short term, I expect a lot of decommissioning of functioning nuclear plants (bad) and aging coal/gas plants (better). In the medium term, these things will be replaced by renewables where they make sense, some countries/provinces/states may just decide to stop producing energy and start importing it entirely. In the long term, I think we're looking at nuclear, although if people were serious about stopping climate change, we would be building nuclear plants at a monotonically increasing rate.

In an environment where the world is running out of conventional fossil fuels, it is refreshing to learn about the renewable resources that are now a reality. Alternative energy sources such as solar and wind, biomass, geothermal and hydropower seem to be a future of this world, with innovations such as "smart" products that harvest energy by tapping into the environment. I am a supporter of renewable energy sources, with hydrogen fueling cars (combined with electric cars) and fuel cells as a feasible replacement for fossil fuels. But, can the world be 100% dependent on renewable energy sources? My belief is that it is possible. The question is only how long it will take and what it would take.

Currently, developed countries are interested in energy issues and energy use. They have a preference for renewable energy. The research and application of renewable energy is becoming more frequent. Wind power, solar power, electric cars, tides are things that are being talked about a lot.
In Germany, there is a road installed with solar panels.
Policies of countries to promote renewable energy. In many developed countries, there is a policy to buy back electricity at a higher price than electricity from fossil energy sources. I believe renewable energy is the future of the world, but we also need to acknowledge the important role of fossil energy such as oil, gas, coal... in the marine industry, metallurgy industry, chemistry...

That is the aim of the European Union, to have zero net Carbon emissions by 2050. They have three decades, so it should be possible. But right now, there are a lot of countries which are using coal-fired powerplants to generate electricity. Even if they switch to natural gas, there is going to be net emissions of CO₂. One option is to replace thermal powerplants with nuclear ones, but the rise of Green party in countries such as Germany has put a doubt on such moves. Ironically, the Green party is fiercely opposed to nuclear energy, which is one of the cleanest forms of electricity generation (if managed properly).

That is the aim of the European Union, to have zero net Carbon emissions by 2050. They have three decades, so it should be possible. But right now, there are a lot of countries which are using coal-fired powerplants to generate electricity. Even if they switch to natural gas, there is going to be net emissions of CO₂. One option is to replace thermal powerplants with nuclear ones, but the rise of Green party in countries such as Germany has put a doubt on such moves. Ironically, the Green party is fiercely opposed to nuclear energy, which is one of the cleanest forms of electricity generation (if managed properly).

I have heard that some European countries are going to switch to renewable energy sources until 2050. We see successful examples of those which use wind, sun, water and this way they get energy. It will be a really big step for human civilization to start using only renewable energy and I believe that thanks to new technologies and development of science it will happen within time.

larger countries don't have any chance at switching to renewable any time soon

The technology is not advanced enough or cheap enough to get a good ROI if you invest in solar for the average consumer. You might have hydroelectric power or windmills used in isolation in some countries if the burden of electricity is small, but larger countries don't have any chance at switching to renewable any time soon, so perhaps the answer is what you mean by "the future."
Nuclear power should be in the near future, though. The main problem with nuclear is what to do with the resulting waste, but it seems the carbon foot print of disposing nuclear waste is lower than that of fossil fuels.