Will someone give me a thorough explanation of Renewable Energy?

Question

I understand we're trying to cut back on Coal and Nuclear Energy, and find other sources such as Wind... yet am unsure of the issue at hand? Does it all have to with Global Warming?

I especially want to know the Political Stance on this, and what your opinion is on it...

-Simple yet Detailed Answers Greatly Appreciated!

Answer 1

I think you have recieved a couple very good explanations of renewable energy. So I'll address the rest of your question.

There are a couple of reasons to look at renewable energy, Global Warming us just one. With or without climate change fossil fuels are creating more pollution than the earth can absorb. We are creating air quality that is causing harm to humans health. We have a dramatic increase in asthma as well as other respiratory diseases. There is evidence that the ocean is becoming acidic because of the quantity of CO2 it absorbs. So if we continue on the path we are on now pollution or climate change is going to render the earth uninhabitable for humans.

The other reason to look at renewable or alternate energy is fossil fuel has a finite supply. We have many scientist who are spending a lot of time and money guessing how long it will last. The one thing they all agree on is at some point the well will run dry. If we continue on the path we are on there are several likely senarios. The most obvious being wars over oil, and the prices skyrocketing. As oil becomes scare or is thought to be scarce those who control it will control the world economy. The price of everything will increase.

When we look at the politics of renewable energy it seems to point again to money. The companies who will profit from our dependance on oil are lobbying hard to keep us dependant. It isn't about the economy of the nation it is about the economy of the industry. The less oil we use the lower the price will go, basic economic theory of supply and demand. The American Auto makers were successful in getting the fuel efficiency laws revoked so they didn't have to change their practices, and it seems to have back fired. The most fuel efficient cars are not American made. Ford was the only company who had enough vision to embrace the hybrid technology.

The next President has the ability to keep us behind the rest of the world or bring us back to the top as a leader in inovation. I hope we all vote wisely.

Answer 2

renewable energy is energy that can be used over and over again like wind... wind will keep on moving the wind mills unless its not windy : p.... burning oil and coal on the other hand.. after you  get the energy from coal  its gone you can't use it again so you will have to burn more coal which means more co2 gas will be released into the atmosphere and harm increase global warming.

Answer 3

Renewable energy is any energy that comes from a source that is not depleted by use as fossil fuels are.  It can be produced as needed from renewable resources such as corn (ethanol) or vegetable oil (biodiesel).  Solar and wind power could also be considered to be renewable because there is no danger that the supply will diminish.  By contrast, non-renewable energy sources such as oil and coal have limited supplies.  They were created from organic material buried under tons of rock after one of the mass extinctions.  When they're used up, there won't be any more unless we wait for another mass extinction, then wait a few million more years for nature to take its course.  Of course we wouldn't be around to benefit from that, so it's worthwhile to look for energy sources that can be readily renewed, or will not be depleted (the sun technically isn't renewable, but we can count on it to continue providing energy for a few billion more years before its fuel runs out).

Answer 4

The answer to your query about global warming is that no, the two questions are separate if slightly related.

Nuclear energy is not exactly renewable even if we may be able to go on finding fissionable material forever, or develop fusion reactors that we can keep going forever on almost no fissionable fuel.  When we derive heat from deep in the earth it is not truly renewable, but the supply is so great that we think of it as renewable.

Wind, while it will come again tomorrow is a finite resource today, we can not take an infinite amount of energy from the wind. Solar energy keeps on coming every day, but collecting it uses up space on earth, so it is not infinitely collectible.

Likewise resources like corn, wood we can produce more of these fuels by using up resources like land and water. These are solar energy in storage. The land and the water are often a scarce supply, sometimes only one of them is scarce at a given location.  In a rain forest only the land is scarce, in the desert only water is scarce. In Kansas we may have enough of both or too little of both. It is never infinite.  

Global warming questions of course come down split. Nuclear is not creating a greenhouse gas of consequence, but it is not renewable, and is suspect on the safety question. Yet coal that is non renewable is often seen as worse than nuclear from a global warming perspective.

And natural gas fits into a rare perspective. It produces a greenhouse gas, but less than coal, so it is bad but not as bad. Natural gas from the high arctic is a very special case for global warming because it is likely to be released as a major greenhouse gas as the arctic melts. And if it replaces coal or oil as fuel it cuts down on global warming CO2 as well.

Because natural gas is a finite resource, not a renewable, there is a conflicting view of high arctic gas. Some want to prevent its extraction because extraction will harm a fragile ecosystem for a non-renewable resource. But if it be allowed to be released as a result of melting arctic, the fragile environment is lost, the gas is lost, and the environment is loaded up with greenhouse gas.

Taking a doctrinal approach accomplishes little. The public will defeat at the polls any party that will not arrange to provide the energy resources they have come to expect, even if it is not possible. So politically the solution appears to be nuclear but not in my back yard, and high arctic natural gas delivered as liquefied natural gas to pipes that run offshore, miles away from cities.

Wind looks to be a political hot potato because it provides power but no base load. It delivers electricity that is likely not in demand at the moment because the nuclear plant would have been delivering it if it were in demand. When demand on the nuclear plant is beyond its capacity the wind farm is likely to be in a calm.

In theory we could have automatic loads drawing power when wind is available, but out infrastructure would have to inform the loads of this fact so that they can use it, and shut down when there is no wind.

Hydro power is finite but renewable. Hydro may or may not be adjustable to meet demand. Where no mighty dam is required, hydro is so very economical, We would all love to have unending supplies of hydro with no need for dams.

Hydro based on mighty dams occupies some of the world's best real estate to store water. It provides power on demand, so it is still a great energy provider even though it destroys ideal farmland, and stores a lot of mud, and risks breaking with catastrophic results. There are certainly valid objections to these mighty dams. What sells politicians on them is lack of alternatives that look better. They have to provide that power.