Pros and cons of different alternative energy?
Sunday, August 16th, 2009 at
7:04 am
1. Geothermal
2. Solar
3. Wind power
4. Hydroelectric
5. Biomass
Those are some of the alternative energy please give us some more if there are any and some websites thx:)
I NEED SOME GOOD ANSWERS!
Home | Contact | About | Privacy Policy | Sitemap
Tagged with: Alternative Energy • biomass • geothermal • Wind Power
Filed under: Alternative Energy
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
To say that any of this is free is to misunderstand economics. The raw material, be it electromagnetic radiation, heat, kinetics, gravity, or chemical is readily available. The cost is in the effort to make it usable. In other words wind may be free, windmills are not.
Geothermal works only in places where there is hot magma near the surface. Iceland has made great use of geothermal power.
Solar is the most promising. Sun is readily available in much of the world (polar regions during their winter being the exception). Biggest drawback is that it isn’t available at night, however power usage surges during the day so it is most available when most needed. The cost is a bit prohibitive, but technology is slowly making solar power competitive. We will see the day where in more tropical latitudes every square inch of rooftop is covered in solar panels.
Wind is unsteady and usually the most available where it is least needed. The high plains have lots of wind potential, and not many people to consume it. This means long distance transmission, with its attendant costs.
Hydroelectric, most of the good rivers in the west already are dammed, though there is plenty of potential in the rest of the world. Tidal and ocean currents have great potential, but the cost and technical challenges are prohibitive.
Biomass, similar problems to coal and oil, puts carbon particulate matter into the air. Waste from crops or garbage is a good use of otherwise unused material, but when we go to corn or cane we are taking food supplies generally from the poorest and diverting it to energy generally for the richer world.
For all these ideas, coal and oil are going to be king for quite some time to come.
Actually the biggest source of untapped energy is in reducing usage, better insulation, telecommuting, smarter homes and appliances for instance.
1. con: location dependent, unstable source; pro: free.
2. con: somewhat weather & location (seasonal) dependent; pro: free.
3. con: location dependent, kinda ugly; pro: free.
4. con: terraforming consequences; pro: almost free.
5. pro: …may as well.
6. Hydrogen. — pro(s): clean burning, plentiful.
http://answerall.wirelessroot.com
A very informative website, you can also get much information in website.
Geothermal is good howver it needs to be in regions were there is previous history or current history of volcanic activities they are very expensive to construct as well with minimal green house effect.
Solar is good definately cheap and all you need is the sun and you have power. however my understanding of solar is you would need a large field of panels to power a city so the wasted land with these panel sitting on them turns me off.
Wind power is very good especially in coastal areas, but you will find you would need huge wind farms to be able to power cities or even contribute reasonably to the national grid.
Hydro- electric is very good, it does however require the land to be valley like and have a gorge present to work effectively but it is the most popular and can power up the entire grid by itself very efficient.
Biomass hmmm, not to keen on bio mass green house gas emissions use of methane to produce power to extract biomass energy is expensive.
How about Nuclear i think though it is dangerous it is the best because of the amount energy it can produce. The smaller nuclear power stations used on US NAVY ships are refuelled or re- serviced once every 20 years how good is that. Good luck
There is alot of information available on the web about this question that you can look up yourself
Pro’s for all your suggestions – they have the potential to be FREE.
Con’s for all your suggestions – they have the potential to be FREE.
Point being, till the problems of the human species is addressed – greed and love of the all might currency that is in favor at the moment which makes it possible for a CEO of a company that pretty much has exclusive control over what is seen as a needed commodity of the majority of the population to have an income that could feed a country for a year…..
The problem is not just limited to energy sources but has taken on other facets as well.
Geothermal is really neat. It has various efficiencies in certain areas. Most would be good for cooling, but the part that threw me off was the price tag. It’s not uncommon to spend $20 to 40k for a 2500 sq ft house. It’s been around for awhile, but it’s so new to the installers, they don’t even have all the answers, but to try to install, and see what happens.
I really like the idea of solar, but again, very pricey to make something worth wild. I believe this goes hand-and-hand with conversation, which is a missing bullet, and often forgotten strategy. There are ideal places for the most available sunlight, like Arizona. If you live up north, it might not be as efficient, and to get the most you have to also look at putting motors on the panels to keep them in direct sunlight as much as their is sunlight adding to the price tag. For the average household, spending about $7k gets you about 10-15 kWh per day. Average houses use between 800 to 2000 kWh, so you would have to bump up to a $25-40k system to provide enough energy at current usage levels, providing no conservation efforts were made. This does not include the price to install…
Wind Power is probably the most accessible, especially to a DIY person. You can make your own out of car alternators, like a kid did for his community for less $20 in Africa, or you can spend again $20k for a nice commerical grade residential windmill that is location efficient again. Some areas have more wind, like West Texas. Even Dallas for that matter that has more wind than Chicago. Not unlike solar, it has a lot of variability, so you might get a lot of power one day, not any for another which brings in the idea of buying high dollar batteries that can add $1k for however much backup you want. A good two or three day backup would cost around $7-10k.
Hydro is cool if you live in a place you get to it. There are windmills you can sink into rivers, generators you can put in tides of beaches, and of course dams on rivers. You really have to get a lot of feedback from your neighbors and city before damming a part of your river. Sometimes storms knock them out, and they flow down knocking bridges that could kill people.
Biomass is really for larger operations that are located next to the dump. You might be able to build a small grass or hay system that you can generate heat off of. This would eat a lot of space to get a lot of heat from, but it would be a great source of heat if you don’t mind the grass smell coming into your home. For someone with allergies, that might be bad.
1. Geothermal. Con limited number of suitable locations. Pro- no fuel cost
2. Solar. Con-high cost to produce power, not much good unless the sun is shining, takes up allot of space, suitable locations are far from the source of power demand, high capital and maintenance cost. Pro- no fuel cost
3. Wind power. Con- limited suitable locations, only good when the wind is blowing, noise bothers the neighbours and mars the landscape, high capital and maintenance cost. Pro- no fuel cost
4. Hydroelectric.Con- few suitable locations not developed yet, dams interfere with migration of fish. Pro- provides the lowest cost power, can run 24/7
5. Biomass Con-only limited quantities available, burning wood, straw etc to make power produces allot of smoke, takes allot of energy to collect, often is high cost power Pro- uses waste that would otherwise not be used.
Here you go:
http://www.eco-wisdom.com/articles/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-a-relief-to-humanity.html