Besides coal, what energy sources have a lot of disadvantages?

Question

(price, cleanliness, pollution, non-renewable..anything)

Answer 1

Nuclear is being pushed as a good alternative.

There are many problems with nuclear that aren't commonly understood.

Nukes are time consuming and expensive to build.

Solar and Wind are both quicker to get up and running than coal or nuclear.

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

Nuclear power has no accountability for safety.

"The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

Nuclear waste must be transported from all around the country to Yucca Mtn. Nevada for disposal.  This is costly and dangerous.

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund."  

That's just one state.

Nuclear plants are expensive to dismantle when they wear out.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."    

That's $500 million per plant.

"In the United States, current surcharges on nuclear power too low to cover expected disposal costs. In addition, the US government foolishly absorbed all risk for an on-time opening of a repository for commercial nuclear waste -- despite longstanding technical and political challenges associated with making this happen."

Nuclear plants are not safe.

"A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure."

Nuclear doesn't provide energy independence.

"The new agreement permits Russia to supply 20 percent of US reactor fuel until 2020 and to supply the fuel for new reactors quota-free."

"So if, under a President McCain, we build a bunch of new nuclear reactors -- they could be fueled 100 percent by Russia."

"I can almost hear Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin saying, "Excellent." "

from:  http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/3/...

We import 90% of our uranium, compared with 65% of our oil.

Nuclear plants require billions of gallons of water for cooling.  Climate change could threaten the availability of that water.

Nuclear Power is hydro power"  by Lou at

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2...

Drought could force nuke-plant shutdowns:

"Nuclear reactors across the Southeast could be forced to throttle back or temporarily shut down later this year because drought is drying up the rivers and lakes that supply power plants with the awesome amounts of cooling water they need to operate."

"Already, there has been one brief, drought-related shutdown, at a reactor in Alabama over the summer.

“Water is the nuclear industry’s Achilles’ heel,” said Jim Warren, executive director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, an environmental group critical of nuclear power. “You need a lot of water to operate nuclear plants.” He added: “This is becoming a crisis.”

"An Associated Press analysis of the nation’s 104 nuclear reactors found that 24 are in areas experiencing the most severe levels of drought. All but two are built on the shores of lakes and rivers and rely on submerged intake pipes to draw billions of gallons of water for use in cooling and condensing steam after it has turned the plants’ turbines."

"David Fleming, creator of the concept of Tradeable Energy Quotas and author of the forthcoming and rather wonderful “Lean Logic”, has just published The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy, which is a thorough demolition of the case for nuclear power being a solution to peak oil. and climate change. You can down load the pdf. for free here or you can order printed copies here. Like much of David’s writing, it patiently yet assertively builds its arguments, backed up by exhaustive research, to build a case against nuclear power that looks pretty much bulletproof to me." from

http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

http://transitionculture.org/2007/12/07/...

Link to The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy"

Solar and Wind are the best choices for the bulk of our electric needs.  They both need no fuel ever.  That means no fuel to explore for, mine, transport, store, burn or use for fission, no waste or pollutants to clean up.

There is much dis-information about the potential of these clean energy sources.  

"Nanosolar’s founder and chief executive, Martin Roscheisen, claims to be the first solar panel manufacturer to be able to profitably sell solar panels for less than $1 a watt. That is the price at which solar energy becomes less expensive than coal.

With a $1-per-watt panel,” he said, “it is possible to build $2-per-watt systems.

According to the Energy Department, building a new coal plant costs about $2.1 a watt, plus the cost of fuel and emissions, he said."

from http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/c...

The rest of the photovoltaic industry is just a few years behind them in reaching grid parity with coal and gas.

Solar thermal power plants which use the heat of the sun to generate steam to make electricity are also competitive with coal and gas.

Scientific American  A Solar Grand Plan

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-so...

Shows how solar plants in the southwest could power 69% of our electric grid by 2050

A clean energy grid could charge electric or plug in hybrid vehicles.

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/

Lots of news on solar thermal progress in California and other states already happening.

"Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods."

"All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

http://www.ausra.com

Here's how we are holding up progress in renewables while giving huge subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear.  By comparison, the subsidies for alternative energy are miniscule.

"There are areas in Denmark and Germany who use more than 40 percent of their electricity from wind.   From what I have read, they are less concerned about the intermittency than we are in the United States even though we aren't at 1 pecent yet.   Why?   Because we are told by the fossil fuel guys, hey, can't use wind, can't use solar, what about the intermittency.   If wind gets up to 40 percent of the electricity we use and solar gets up to 40 of the electricity we use, the other percents of electricity we need can be made up from the fossil fuel plants that are still there.  If they are run less at full power, they can last a long time.  That can be your electricity `battery.'"

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/1/...

"The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan"

from the Scientific American article

Thermal solar is currently the lowest cost solar technology, $0.08-$0.14 per kWh

"I'd put my money on the sun & solar energy.  What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."  Thomas Edison, 1931

http://www.setamericafree.org/blueprint....

A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

Here is sound thinking about our energy future.

Answer 2

pretty near all of 'em.

oil and natural gas also emit CO2.

hydro dams inhibit fish reproduction.

and change water distribution patterns.

solar panel manufacture uses toxic chemicals.

wind turbines are loud, and kill birds.

nuclear waste remains deadly for thousands of years.

the problem is really, which is the least worst.

seems there are quite a lot of such questions these days.

Answer 3

All of the energy problems are a result of poor engineering. And poor engineering is causing all of the high cost of energy as well as all the polution. With just a little good engineering coal or trash could be excellent energy resources. Wind, water and nuclear are all good examples of poorly planned short sighted engineering focused on making quick bucks without any reguard for long term effects.

Answer 4

A lot of them. Wind turbines alter views, and kill a lot of birds. Solar is expensive but getting cheaper, but works better in different locations. Tidal alters shorelines and sensitive ecosystems, dams vastly alter a landscape, and there are numerous examples of dams not working out at all, nuclear has nuclear waste, natural gas has huge pipelines and is limited, burning garbage is bad for the atmosphere