not just in terms of electricity generation, but economically, is there a realistic & viable solution to our energy crisis without the use of fossil fuels?
Im 14 & doing a GCSE case study for science, PLEASE ANSWER!!
& thanks to all replies 
Originally posted 2009-08-31 00:34:35.
No related posts.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Nuclear energy would be good and is the best answer.
Solar and wind are expensive.
There are several alternatives, the question is the political will to adopt them.
I work in the wind energy industry, so I’m naturally a bit more informed in that department. This report came out last week:
/mg20227143.600-wind-power-
could-replace-fossil-fuels.html
/06/19/0904101106.full.pdf+html
I had to split those links a bit.
Are you in the uk? Another 6% of current electricity demand could come from the Severn Barrage, another 10% from tidal-stream technologies, another 10% from wave power. Then there’s 3rd generation Photovoltaics in the pipeline, likely to be 3-4 times more efficient than current PV, making it economically viable even in the uk. Then there’s other sources like bio-fuels, etc. The only mature renewable technology at the moment is wind power, so that is the only viable renewable solution right now. But there isn’t the political will to make it a reality. Frustrating really, wind power is available now, reliable with the advent of the European Super-grid being advanced by firms such as Airtricity, far cheaper than nuclear which gets massive subsides that wind does not, and if we were to build all we need it would get us through the period until a better alternative comes along. Then the windfarm can be completely removed, foundations and all, so you’d never know it had been there. People are more interested in not spoiling the view from a footpath they haven’t walked down in ten years.
Then there’s nuclear fission (what the uk government is pushing for at the moment). That is, if we abdicate responsibilty for dealing with the waste for the next 100,000 years – but hey, that’s our children’s problem so *** em. Also, uranium ore deposits will only last another 70-80 years and then we’re back in the same position, but with a load of old nuclear sites no-one can enter. The solution that will be suggested then will be to get the uranium from sea-water, but nuclear fission is already immensely expensive and that will make it even more uneconomical. Its worth noting that the price of nuclear electricity you see quoted does not include the decomissioning, waste management, or waste disposal costs.
The next solution that a lot of people are banking on (a very dangerous game, putting all their eggs in one basket) is nuclear fusion. They hope it will be economically viable and commercially available by the mid 2020s. Being as they haven’t even worked out the physics yet, let alone the engineering, this is not to be counted on.
Then there’s “Carbon Capture and Storage” from coal. Again, this is an unproven and untested technology. Even if it works as planned it will only remove 20-25% of the CO2 from the emissions it produces. This will see the current government out of the short term 2020 CO2 commitments, but will do nothing for the real heavy commitments to 2050. Again, short term thinking in the political agenda.
So, there are solutions there, but don’t count on anyone actually doing anything about it. In the uk most of our power comes from the “Big 6″ energy firms, which are all owned by foreign companies, and rely on foreign gas and oil imports. Do they really have the interest in ensuring security of supply?
But while people are more interested in the view, why should they care?
Parabolic solar with holagrams would cut 3/4 out in 3 years if we wanted but there is too much money to be made in oil.
1/4 nuclear would generate the rest including 100% electric cars,
France 85% nuclear energy,Germany, Spain and everyone else is ahead of the US,,, and their “lies” the answer.
Now, here’s a thought for you, patent a recording of a race car so your electric car sounds like a gas engine, this way you can hear nore than blasting music when you get hit.
By the way, if they added $15,000 to the price of a new home you would never have an electric bill and that would include heating and a/c. $900.00 more and you could have a solar pumped water well.
It will take a combination of sources to completely eliminate fossil fuels. I do not expect that in the next hundred years.
Wind solar and nuclear will be needed, Wind and solar can supplement our energy needs but are too unrealiable for a base use. Also, only nuclear can be designed to meet industry needs for really hot air/ gas. We will still need fossil based materials if we intend to continnue use of plastics and synthetic materials.
I also note it will take people of responsibility; willing to look out for future generations and not just abdicate the responsibility as one responded has advocated,
Handled responsibly, nuclear power id safe and clean and will be sustainable for hundreds of years to come at a cost that socoiety can afford,