So what combination of alternative energy sources do we need to supply our national requirements without foreign oil?

That is, what percentage do we need from nuclear, liquefied or sequestered emission coal, wind power, wave power, geothermal, hydroelectric, solar cell, concentrated solar, biodiesel, ethanol or better, cellulosic ethanol and whatever else I've missed. Is it doable? When?

Not looking for a research paper, just your musings or judgment on the topic. Asked by Thannisan 47 months ago Similar questions: combination alternative energy sources supply national requirements foreign oil Environment > Energy.

Similar questions: combination alternative energy sources supply national requirements foreign oil.

Alternative energy sources are available NOW... but under great starting costs... Alternative energy is possible right now, everybody needs to know that... and we're not talking about nuclear powerplants... but all other "green" energy sources COMBINED... each part of globe has particular perk that can be used for energy collection... deserts have so much sun that solar power would be able to store a lot of energy in battery cells... and now, Li-Ion batteries proved that they're capable of providing energy even for a car (Tesla electric car)... SPORT car... Wind power is a great source... There is so much spots on the globe where wind is blowing more than 50% of the year. Even tidal waves are a great source for free power... But problem is RESOURCES to start with... it takes a lot of financial power to improve proved techniques... and to MAKE "green" powerplants... After that, energy comes with virtually no expenses. Companies that would be able to invest in such a great projects are not interested since it's much greater profit to just buy pumped out oil and use it as primary energetic source.

Something like when Tesla realized that much more powerful electricity can be used instead of type first discovered (kinda like the one used in the cars for electric gadgets inside)... Poor guy lost his whole laboratory probably because some very influent people would loose monopoly over very good profit making business... but I'm talking politics now and that's not our theme... Alternative fuels (like biodiesel) is still to expensive to manufacture since you need tons and tons of plants for hectoliter of biodiesel... But there is also propane-buthan and natural gas. Globe's resources on these gases in some countries are so great that they just gas it out in the atmosphere as a nus-product... Gas is so cheap since there is so much of it in the ground in so called "gas pockets" and it's way more ecological than even Biodiesel since the only matter that comes out of exhaust pipe of the car is steam... pure water... Plus of course... like in life... you can increase your savings by two ways... By increasing INCOME or CUTTING EXPENCES... and with energy... If governments start forcing companies to spend some more time researching for more power efficient gadgets and consumer products, power hunger would drop thus meaning less power sources needed to supply mankind.

Hydro; nuclear; wind and solar FISSION The unfortunate truth about generating electricity is that NONE of the sources available, nor in research and development today are without some environmental impact. Even wind generation (which seems to be the new favorite kid on the block) has been accused of being visually poluting, not to mention the fact that the chemicals, lubricants and the means to deliver those and perform maintenance interfere with the natural surroundings on a massive scale. If you have ever driven through the Palm Springs, CA area, you would see mile after mile of windmills, the roads between each one cutting through the desert, and dark oily stains on the sands beneath and around the facility.

There's nothing attractive about all those windmills spread over what used to be a naturally beautiful desert landscape. The other forms of generating electricity are also guilty of some environmental impact or anoter. Hydro-electric plants alter natural streamflow; nuclear comes with an untold number of risks and dangers; solar is also visually poluting (as well as the chemicals etc of maintenance) and is still not feasibile economically; and fission is still in the early stages of research and -- when viable -- will pose risks of explosion if the reaction goes out of control.So, it really comes down to the question: What kind of pollution are we willing to accept in order to supply ourselves with electricity that allows us to live at the luxury to which we've become accostommed?

Personally, after having studied nuclear fission, I am in strong support of regenerating the Nuclear Energy push. And before you ask, yes, you can put one (more) in my back yard. There are already three within 100 miles of me (4 if you count three-mile island which is decommissioned).

I consider them no more a risk than the several oil and gas refineries all around me. They emit magnitudes more pollutants which I get to breath every day. There have beem accidents at refineries that gassed the area with poisonous fumes and noxious chemicals.

Their "regulated" and "legal" emissions are an olfactory nuisance (if not worse) and I would prefer to see a couple cooling stacks spewing steam rather than a flame-off torch creating nitrous an sulphurous compounds that create acid rain and have been proven to cause medical problems in highly sensitive people. The choice for me is "least polution during generation." That's why I picked the ones listed.

Great question... thanks for asking.

1 Finally a juicy question!..........and I don't know the answers (crap! ). BYE!

Finally a juicy question!..........and I don't know the answers (crap! ). BYE!

2 LOL. I know... better to ask than to have to answer... actually, I'll take opinion or even wild guesses. No one talks in specifics, just generalities so I thought I'd ask...

LOL. I know... better to ask than to have to answer... actually, I'll take opinion or even wild guesses. No one talks in specifics, just generalities so I thought I'd ask...

I'm full of opinions.1. Hydroelectric is the safest (guess) We got two fairly big mountain ranges in this country, megatons of water coming out from them. There shouldn't be a fairly large river coming out of any of them without a dam in front of it.

(yeah, I know--bad for the fish--but good for us). 50%2. Nuclear 30%3.

Alternative energy/s 20%I'm not counting fossil fuels and such things and would perfer we cut them out all together as far as the 'grid' goes. BYE!

" "Off shore drilling vs. alternative energy plan. Discuss" "is nuclear energy a very good alternative? " "What are the most interesting new sources of energy?

" "Have anyone implemented alternative energy source at home?" "Is Biodiesel a viable alternative energy for consumers in China?

Off shore drilling vs. alternative energy plan. Discuss.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.