Yes, we need to have renewable energy because if we still use the current energy, the earth will damage and the pollution will be at all places. With the situation now, the earth was already screaming about the carbon and another emission that every country uses, so it needs environmentally friendly renewable energy.
I think this is all country's concern to start using renewable energy. Still, it costs highly because they need to invent new tools or peripheral that can support that renewable energy. But once that tools or peripheral can be mass-produced, the cost can reduce so all countries will not have to pay a high cost to implement.
Topic: Are Renewable Energy resources the future? - page 7. (Read 896 times)
Yes the world can be 100% dependent on renewable energy, it can be achieved if the government were to start adopting it and destroy the oil and fossil fuel companies because they are the biggest opposition of the renewable energy resources, mind you that electric cars were a thing already back in the 60s but it was so suppressed because they care more about the profit rather than innovation. To make it sustainable, we have to create a new kind of battery that can be molded into industrial level and commercial kind because renewable energy gathers a lot of energy but some of them dissipates because there's no storage or if there's one, it's not a proper one.
Are they future? Oh yes definitely they are the future. But are they going to be there 100%, that’s big No. Unfortunately its not happy thing to say but there are many challenges while using the renewable sources which primarily contains Solar, Wind, Tidal power etc. More news ways are also being invented every time but with low success rate of getting used. This is because of the cost involved to build the structures. In addition to this Nature is not always happy with humans it can destructing and sometimes the Sun can be so shy you would die to freez.
I’m just saying this shorty but if you think about it deeply you will understand how things can go wrong if we think about 100% nature dependence. Different geography, different weather cycles and more factors to affect continuous production of clean energy.
I’m just saying this shorty but if you think about it deeply you will understand how things can go wrong if we think about 100% nature dependence. Different geography, different weather cycles and more factors to affect continuous production of clean energy.
Do we have a choice? Non-renewable energy sources are finite. They are not unlimited. Sooner or later they will be depleted. The world's population is rising. Along with that is the rise of energy demand. Urbanization is creeping quite fast. That also means energy demand. Technologies are sprouting everywhere. They also demand power. If we are to depend on non-renewable energy sources, what happens when they finally run out one day? That is why we need to tap renewable sources. They are indeed the future.
Of course they are the future, oil and gas is a limited resources, and it's also very important for chemical industry. People of the future would be blaming us for burning it not only because of global warming, but also because they will have less oil to make plastics and chemicals. And you should also consider that oil as we know it can currently only be found on Earth, because we don't even know about any life outside of Earth.
However, nuclear energy is not considered renewable, but I think it's also the future, it's getting bad rep because of crazy eco-activists, but it is clean and most of the nuclear materials will not be needed for other purposes, so it's okay to use it for energy.
Nuclear energy isn't actually renewable, if used correctly though, it's a quite efficient and clean source of energy. However, it's not really the safest, if something goes wrong, we're pretty much screwed.However, nuclear energy is not considered renewable, but I think it's also the future, it's getting bad rep because of crazy eco-activists, but it is clean and most of the nuclear materials will not be needed for other purposes, so it's okay to use it for energy.
The question is, can the whole planet be dependent on renewable energy sources? The EU currently has targeted to reach 40% until 2030, will it be surpassed? If I'm not mistaken, the current share of renewable energy sources is approximately 20%.
I don't know how it will be in other places, but where I live they are very interested in this. Because the effects of climate in recent years are becoming more and more obvious, and reducing the amount of CO2 into the environment is considered very necessary to protect the living environment.
Although economic conditions do not allow everything to be universal, I have seen many solar panels or electricity produced from wind turbines.
Although economic conditions do not allow everything to be universal, I have seen many solar panels or electricity produced from wind turbines.
I mean without it, with the limited supply we have of resources, we'd inevitably end up going down as a dying civilization in the long run. Yes, the setup is expensive when it comes to renewable energy and there'd probably be a lot of prep we actually need to do, but it simply means that it's worth the price since we aren't looking at it from a short term perspective, it's a long one, a very long one at that. It's still under research anyhow on how to effectively use it so, at the very least, we're progressing.
And Idrk if the question is answerable since I don't know much about the current progress, but it should be obvious if its possible if you observe the improvements and what not that's happening in relation to it.
And Idrk if the question is answerable since I don't know much about the current progress, but it should be obvious if its possible if you observe the improvements and what not that's happening in relation to it.
Without doubt renewable energy resources are going to be the future for different reasons. Renewable energy sources are clean and can be maintained at a very low cost, but it requires large investment for the initial set-up. Another factor is the usage, it depends on the surrounding for its power generation. So, the power generation can't be expected to be stable in all occasions.
Most of the renewable energy resources were expensive to setup. Same as the advantages there'll be disadvantages with these. The important part, it can be overcome with the growing technology and efficiency can be achieved lowering the pollution and release of toxics.
Most of the renewable energy resources were expensive to setup. Same as the advantages there'll be disadvantages with these. The important part, it can be overcome with the growing technology and efficiency can be achieved lowering the pollution and release of toxics.
In one shape or form renewable energy will cease to be seen as separate to any other energy source just preferable for its efficiency as much as other types, just requires more refinement and investment I think.
It may not be exactly as some perceive now, for example bio diesel can be developed from strains of algae. This is possible today but its not cost efficient as the diesel though natural is hard to produce on a massive scale required to compete with simply extracting ancient reserves but in future it may happen to be the main source of fuel. Its disappointing how little tidal energy is being used, thats just a case of engineering making use of such large changes every day.
It may not be exactly as some perceive now, for example bio diesel can be developed from strains of algae. This is possible today but its not cost efficient as the diesel though natural is hard to produce on a massive scale required to compete with simply extracting ancient reserves but in future it may happen to be the main source of fuel. Its disappointing how little tidal energy is being used, thats just a case of engineering making use of such large changes every day.
Of course they are the future, oil and gas is a limited resources, and it's also very important for chemical industry. People of the future would be blaming us for burning it not only because of global warming, but also because they will have less oil to make plastics and chemicals. And you should also consider that oil as we know it can currently only be found on Earth, because we don't even know about any life outside of Earth.
However, nuclear energy is not considered renewable, but I think it's also the future, it's getting bad rep because of crazy eco-activists, but it is clean and most of the nuclear materials will not be needed for other purposes, so it's okay to use it for energy.
However, nuclear energy is not considered renewable, but I think it's also the future, it's getting bad rep because of crazy eco-activists, but it is clean and most of the nuclear materials will not be needed for other purposes, so it's okay to use it for energy.
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.
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.
I think we have a problem of places investing in things THEY can easily use. Places like north Western Europe with a lot of coastal areas have done extensive research on wind power and hydro electric as they're the most usable in those places). It's kinda been helped by China doing a lot of research into making solar but all of these power sources require emissions to be produced imo and solar might require unrecycleable plastic (I'm not sure if there are any mostly silicon versions available though).
Many countries in the world also have a condition for reducing carbon emissions. The EU still targets itself at 50% renewable power consumption (set in law) and the UK receives wind power for most of the year other than a few days every few months (I think they're designed to function at speeds between 20mph and 50 so if the wind speed is too low or too high it has to be turned off).
Many countries in the world also have a condition for reducing carbon emissions. The EU still targets itself at 50% renewable power consumption (set in law) and the UK receives wind power for most of the year other than a few days every few months (I think they're designed to function at speeds between 20mph and 50 so if the wind speed is too low or too high it has to be turned off).
The world has been depending on burning fossil fuels for energy, throughout all these years. With dependence on fossil fuels, soon enough these finite materials will be depleted. Not only that, but it also has adverse effects for the environment, everything from air to ocean and land pollution.
Fossil fuels include, coil, oil and natural gas, with the latter being cleaner that oil and coal in terms of emissions. Let's also keep in mind how strenuous of a process it is to extract oil, promoting environmental disasters.
Most common renewable energy sources include, solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy, tidal energy and a few others.
The big question here is, can the world be 100% dependent on renewable energy sources? How can that be achieved and are they sustainable?
Fossil fuels include, coil, oil and natural gas, with the latter being cleaner that oil and coal in terms of emissions. Let's also keep in mind how strenuous of a process it is to extract oil, promoting environmental disasters.
Most common renewable energy sources include, solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy, tidal energy and a few others.
The big question here is, can the world be 100% dependent on renewable energy sources? How can that be achieved and are they sustainable?
Jump to: