Is it feasible to ditch conventional electricitygeneration methods in the US and rely solely on the following:

Question

1. Nuclear energy
2. Biomass
3. Hydroelectric
4. Solar
5. Wind
6. others that I haven't thought of

My point is, could we completely eliminate our greenhouse gas emissions due to burning natural gas and coal, and switch entirely to the above methods? I'm not including car propulsion methods or anything like that in this. I'm talking solely about electricity production.

Answer 1

First of all, we have had one of the coldest winter's in a long time. We are seeing snow in African countries for pete's sake.
Scientist's all speak of "consensus" of opinion on the issue, but it is just opinion, and biased opinion at that. If they don't support Global warming, they don't get grants.

This being said, I strongly support the innovations in alternative energy sources for another reason; We need to get away from using as much petroleum from "evil" countries that mistreat their people via the lack of human rights, such as Saudi Arabia. In that light, all of the above modes of energy production have some validity, especially Nuclear power. The problem is that the "Ecofascists" do not want us to have nuclear power or ANY form of power production, for that matter. They don't want Nuclear power plants, they don't want wind farms (they are ugly), ect ect. The truth is we need them ALL and we need petroleum as well to maintain our country and our economic superiority.

Oh, and don't forget coal. With the proper methods of processing we have up to 600 years of coal in OUR country. This is a good thing.

Answer 2

We already rely on these methods solely. Fossil fuels are a form of Biomass energy. The problem is in the rapid release of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere from ancient biomass fuels. Ethanol and Methanol are biomass fuel derived from recently sequestered carbon and are little different from gasoline and natural gas. The key is how to capture excess Carbon out of the atmosphere. Green energy will most likely be able to meet the growth in demand, but Nuclear energy is the only truly competitive source able to displace current production means. This is of course full of controversy of it's own. Nuclear is cost prohibitive if you do not reprocess the fuel, a process that creates a weapons grade material. Nuclear Proliferation could then stand as a greater threat than Climate Change. I support the idea of decentralized electricity production, Roof top solar panels, wind turbines in yards, energy capture devices, and reduced consumption.
Find a ways to sequester carbon, that is what we need!

Answer 3

Add tidal energy and geothermal. :)
The answer is absolutely yes--and you can leave out biomass and we could stil do without oil/coal/natural gas entirely (leaving out cars and aircraft).

The cheif difficulty (aside from special interests and dumb politicians) is energy storage. For example, you could use solar energy to carry the peak load (e.g. Los Angeles on a hot summmer day)--but unless you have enough capacity from hydroelectric/nuclear etc. for off-peak nightinme loads, you'd need some way of storing the energy generated by solar (etc.) for later use. That's not an insoluable problem. In fact, doing it isn't hard--it's figuring out how to build cost-effective storage systems that s a challenge.

But don't rule out using electricity for cars. This takes a bit of a paradign shift--we are too used to our gas hogs! :) But building electric cars isn't hard--nor need they be expensive. And they are well-suited to urban travel (a better design, functionally, in fact). The technology is there--its the will on the part of automakers to actually implement that's lacking. Note I did not say that the public won't buy them--we live in a country where markets are created as muchby producers as by consumers.

Granted, for some uses--trucks, rural travel, etc.--electricity isn't practical. But biomass could be a substitute for that.

Aircraft are the tough one. Jets need aLOT of power. but if we could get to the point that that's all we were using fossil fuels for (other than the chemical industry) we wouldn't have a problem with the environment anymore.

Answer 4

Nuclear and Hydroelectric energy are in use today anyway. Solar and wind, no way, and I would never support it. I am used to having options and a lifestyle that gives me opportunities 24 hours a day. Solar energy will not cut it and wind power produces too little power.

Wind power is also not eco-friendly. The blades on the windmills decimate the bird population and lead to species extinction.

Answer 5

There is too much money invested in traditional fuels at this time for the switch to be cost effective. Make the switch easier to make and profitable for the right people and it could work

Answer 6

Not with the current onerous state of environmental restrictions and regulations....
We stopped building nuclear reactors because of the ridiculous
environmental regulations...

Answer 7

I don't think you'd be happy with the number of Nuclear plants.

Answer 8

NO