2007-04-02 07:28:08 · 5 answers · asked by Oz 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
I think, serioulsy, that our efforts would be better served in a conservation type manner in helping to solve the worlds energy problems. While some rocks and minerals, take coal for example may offer some solutions they serve only as a bandaid to the true underlying problem: an energy hungry and over consuming world. Until the US government discontinues it's quest to continue to grow the GNP and encourage American consumers to conserve rather than consume, the problems will continue to exist.
2007-04-02 07:57:33 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The only minerals I can think of as energy sources are coal and uranium - both of which are sources of abundant energy.
Coal is a viable replacement for petroleum if it's CO2 emmissions can be trapped and not released into the atmosphere.
Uranium (atomic energy) has the advantage of low cost, no CO2 emmissions, but the problem of safely storing radiation contaminated fuel elements & hardware which can remain hazardous for centuries.
2007-04-02 10:29:13 · answer #2 · answered by p v 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes..
Rocks and minerals may contain
(a) radioactive material, which can be used to generate energy in nuclear reactors
(b) materials which may eventually be used to successfully harness solar energy in solar cells.
Petroleum is chemical energy stored in hydrocarbons. We will need an alternative form of energy, such as solar or nuclear.
2007-04-02 07:34:07 · answer #3 · answered by sir_knowalot 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not unless you can find some way to burn them and get energy out of them.
2007-04-02 07:34:24 · answer #4 · answered by Gene 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That is two questions.
yes
no
2007-04-02 08:56:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋