Why is renewable energy bad for us and the environment?

Question

i need some help for a science project!!

Answer 1

Renewable energy - hydroelectric- flooding of landscape to set up power station =environmental issue.

Wind turbine- noise pollution, also produce v. little energy per turbine and can kill passing birds.

They can't be used whenever, They can only be used when conditions are right.

They are inefficient - solar only uses 10% suns rays.

They don't produce much electricity as source e.g. wind, is spread out.

Hope some of this helps. Good Luck.

Answer 2

What you mean is renewable money that's what it is all about more ripoff.

Answer 3

Wind farms are very expensive in building costs and therefore the cost of the power is way above other methods.  However to "justify" it and appear "green" the Government pays subsidies to wind farm owners.  

As a business investment to make money it is a good idea but it is not economic -especially as they only generate power 30% of the time!

Power loss along long distance cables is vey high.  So power should be generated locally,  Typically 30% losses from remote generators, so for every 4 new nuclear power generators the Government approves 1 is just to make up the losses from the other 3!!!!!!!

Sea power from waves etc. works all the time (except for barriers and tidal on the slack of changes of tide) and are therefore long term viable.  Because there is no subsidy the embryonic industry is starved of cash to prove their power generation claims (which make economic sense, therefore are not Government policy!!!!!).  

Sea power can also be cost effective at small size so every seaside town could have one which makes obvious sense but Government grants are all targetted at wind (visible to voters!!!!!) and therefore towns cannot /will not afford them.        

By the way every large river could generate local power in the same way several times along its length - once again ignored by the Governemt.  

There are many other small scale different energy sources schemes now being used in other countries very succesfully (but the UK Governments do not like enterprise as they lose control) so our money is being wasted and the environment suffers.

By the way Carbon Trading is also not good.  We carry on using polluting systems/methods whilst giving 3rd world countries subsidies to produce "greener" systems for their new generation needs!!!!!!   BUT WE DON'T STOP POLLUTING!      

Welcome to the lunatic asylum!

So the wrong type of renewable is bad for us/environment as it is diverting the countries money to uneconomic projects whilst lulling the country into thinking something is being done - whereas the reality is the nothing sensible is being planned

Answer 4

renewable energy comes almost always from the sun, if we use too much of it, the sun could dry out.

now seriously, I don't know anything that could be wrong with renewable energy sources.

Answer 5

Any  energy use or resource consumption will have an effect on it 's local environment. eg changing tidal flows, access roads, transmission lines, increase food prices & increasingly intensive agro/GM farming for corn(maize) ethonol, destruction of forest for palm oil, water & fertiliser shortages, visual appearance of wind turbines & solar pannels ...

If we want energy hungry lifestyles the energy has to come from somewhere and renewables are nowhere near as bad as fossil fuel & non-renewable alternatives.

eg pollution in sensitive drilling & mining areas (see Nigeria http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/... & N Carolina mountain topping http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/us/28m...

then factor in costs of climate change http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independen...

The only realistic sustainable option is to reduce our consumption. As peak oil hits harder we will not be able to support 6-9bn humans aspiring to US/Hollywood fantasy lifestyles on renewabels.

http://www.greatturningtimes.org

PS electric cars are far more efficient & less polluting even if the electric comes from fossil fuel. Large generators using unrefined fuel, close to source, constantly monitored and maintained running at optimum load & temperature, delivered direct to home or work via a 90% efficient grid.

Then cars that give max torque from 0rpm from cold, regenerative braking & no consumption when idle; plus no noise pollution or smell. lower maintenance... http://www.evuk.co.uk

Answer 6

Apart from the above visual examples, another one might be electric cars - people believe these to be environmentally friendly - but where does the electricity come from? Power stations still!

If you think about tidal energy, then these need to be built and affect the local environment.

Wind farms are not 'brilliant' producers of electricity and need to be replaced/repaired creating waste.

Consumer solar panels are not brilliant either,  I think I heard on the radio the other day that these take something like 20 years to pay for themselves if installed on a house roof (obviously depends on lots of factors).

If you dig deeply in to a lot of these types of things then we are still a long way from clean renewable energy and a lot of investment is still needed.

Answer 7

no it is not, we are sitting on 1bn years (no more than normal back ground CO2 ) of add lib power 0 to four miles down thermal heat taking logical  and not beyond tech at the present time, just the oil,gas and government will not make money, i wish every body would wake up to this, fact it is being used it some places but nobody will high light it

Answer 8

well, for example to some people wind turbines can be an eye-sore and noisy (or as my geography teacher would say "visual & sound polution") and apparently wind farms could disturb the local wildlife which basically stop birds flying in the area etc, but thats about as close as i can get to "why renewable energy is bad for us and the enviroment".

Answer 9

Let's take them one at a time.

Wind: cost to manufacture, transport and maintain. They kill some birds every year, not a lot but probably a good deal more than the 2 per turbine claimed at http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/...

They only work when the wind is blowing at the right speed, too little wind and they don't turn, too much and they have to be shut down.

Solar: very expensive so far to manufacture, requires costly maintenance, transportation is not excessive but the glass is fragile. They obviously only work if the sun is shining but like wind power you can store excess in batteries or as heat. New technologies such as the kind that focus sunlight to heat a liquid which then turns a turbine is cheaper and more practical. Good long term chances, almost no impact on the environment other than the materials to make them and the space they take up. http://www.ausra.com/technology/

Biofuels: this is a disaster. If you took all the food in the world and turned it into bio-fuel you wouldn't have enough to run all the vehicles we use every day. It's costly to produce.and every ear of corn you turn into fuel is one less ear that can be eaten. Sugar cane is far more efficient but can't be grown as widely. Ethanol fires can't be put out with normal the foam fire-fighters usually employ and again, you have to choose between food and fuel. http://un-environmental-initiatives.suit...

Hydroelectric and geothermal: very good, most installations are costly and require a full-time crew but they generate a lot of power, all-year-round. You usually have to build a dam for hydro with a lot of environmental impact. Both can only be deployed in certain areas, such as by a river or where the crust affords a chance to tap into magma's heat.

Nuclear: It's not considered renewable by most people but it is a renewable source and new technology results in much less waste than previously. A single plant can provide a huge amount of electricity but they're expensive to build, require a full-time crew and there is always a chance of a melt-down, no matter how remote. And there is still going to be some nuclear waste and that needs to be stored where it can't get into the water supply for around 10,000 years. A Chernobyl incident in the US is impossible with the safety standards and measures taken, as well as the design of the plant, even an old US plant is immune to what happened in the USSR.

Answer 10

U might want to give mo info on wat u talking about. As far as I no, its the other way round.

Answer 11

you need to hke the other side and show why renewable is good and you will have a better outcome

Answer 12

Renewable energy is a very wide concept, and each of its forms (wind, sun, biofuel, biomass, etc.) faces some form of criticism.

However, the sharpest criticism has been reserved lately to biofuel (without resorting to conspirancy theories, petrol industry seems to play a key role in that movement) . The major problem is how efficiently the biofuel is produced. If you use highly efficient sugar cane, it has the same impact of any other large scale crop. If on the other hand other one uses less efficient plants - like corn -, then is quite possible that more energy will be burned to produce the fuel (think about the machines needed in any agricultural activity) than the final output. The second problem with biofuel is that, without control, there would be pressure to convert wild areas into crops. The last issue is the possible impact on the cost of food and its relation to poverty, but it is important to consider that biofuels would represent a valuable source of income to countries that have nothing more than land and an uneducated workforce.

Hydropower, on the other hand, requires the flooding of enormous areas and disrupts life cycles of many animals (just think about the salmon facing a dam!).

Wind-power generators are criticised for the impact on the landscape and for disrupting migratory routes of birds.

Solar power costs too much and the production of solar panels has obviously an environmental impact.

The fact is that power generation has always an environmental cost. It definitely much smaller in the realm of renewable energy – if compared to fossil fuels – but it exists. What we can do is combine all existing methods in the most intelligent manner but we should also change our lifestyle, to avoid waste of energy and to minimize our “carbon footprint”. I hope to have been of assistance. Good luck!

Answer 13

Wind turbines are not very attractive to look at - but apart from that not too detrimental - but the energy taken to build them takes some time to recoup - they do not provide a great output - and their lifespan is not that great either.Certainly the small ones sold for domestic use are pretty useless.

Barrages across estuaries to harness the energy from tides create a lot of damage to the mudflats in the margins ofthe shore so that wading birds cannot feed there any more - they cost many £billions to build but they will provide large amaounts of energy in return for many years.

Solar cell arrays are not much good in this country (UK) but have some merit in hotter climates - but they do take up a lot of space to be effective.

Answer 14

Biofuel development has mostly involved the destruction of large areas of tropical forests to create palm oil plantations. This threatens the survival of the pygmy elephant and orangutan, as well as sources of major rivers. A more sustainable biofuel is Jatropha. Jatropha can be grownon poor soils, with little water or fertilliser, and so does not compete with food production, nor enroach on rainforests. The plant prefers arid conditions.

Answer 15

It isn't.

It's only "bad" for the environment if you don't like the look of wind-farms, solar arrays, or wave-power generators.

Answer 16

Well fossil fuels are renewable, but they take such a long time to renew that the consequneces of using them are what we have to deal with now.

With all the rest, it depends on the environmental consequences of the method concerned.  Most of the wind turbines people fit to their homes cost more energy to make (and cause pollution) than they will recoup. Big projects like the proposed severn barrier woudl have to balance the effects of the huge amount of environmentally damaging concrete with the energy produced.

Answer 17

Bad for us

It's less cost efficient in the short run, has a lower power output than non-renewable, it is more temperamental (sunlight and wind are subject to many weather variables).

Bad for the environment

solar panels and wind turbines still need to be made and deployed which is unlikely to be done with renewable energy. these items therefore have to run for some time just to offset the energy used in their creation.

as a long term consideration the positives far outweigh the negatives.