Tidal power. Hydrogen power. Magma power. Nuclear waste. Embeddable solar power. Algae power. Flying wind power. Fusion power. Billie Barreias Pundit. Why don't we use renewable energy all the time? Unlike natural gas and coal, we can't store up wind and sunshine to use when we need to make more electricity.
Another reason we use fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, is because they're cheaper. It costs more money to make electricity from wind or sun. Jacquie Cernochova Pundit. What are the pros and cons of renewable energy? Pros : It's clean; abundant, where there are bodies of water. Cons : Dams can create environmental concerns, and it is restricted to where there is water. Solar power uses cells to convert sunlight into electricity. Pros : Unlimited supply of sunlight and no pollution.
Alba Temming Teacher. What is the fastest growing renewable energy source in the world? E85 ethanol transportation fuel is expected to be the fastest growing renewable energy type, growing at an average annual rate of 9. Zana Gagnon Teacher. What is the most promising renewable energy source? The raw energy sources that Jacobson found to be the most promising are, in order, wind, concentrated solar the use of mirrors to heat a fluid , geothermal, tidal, solar photovoltaics rooftop solar panels , wave, and hydroelectric.
Imeldo Betoret Teacher. Which energy source causes the least pollution? Wind is a clean energy source. It produces no air or water pollution because no fuel is burned to generate electricity. Hosanna Ragha Teacher. Will renewables replace fossil fuels? The transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy will not occur overnight, and it will not escape recurring setbacks. Nevertheless, renewables are likely to replace fossil fuels as the dominant source of electrical power well before mid-century as well as make giant strides in other areas such as transportation.
Gerrit Robredo Reviewer. What country uses the most energy? Iceland - 18, kg. In WWII, Jacobson says, America built , airplanes — a far larger and more difficult job than building wind turbines. Our team of journalists remains dedicated to telling stories of climate, justice, and solutions. We aim to inspire more people to talk about climate change and to believe that meaningful change is not only possible but happening right now. Our in-depth approach to solutions-based journalism takes time and proactive planning, which is why Grist depends on reader support.
Help us further advance our reporting by giving us the stable, reliable funding we need. Consider becoming a Grist member today to ensure this important work continues and thrives. Grist aims to inspire more people to talk about climate change and to believe that meaningful change is not only possible but happening right now. Grist is the only nonprofit newsroom focused on exploring solutions at the intersection of climate and justice.
Daniel J. This includes the death of 31 people as a direct result of the disaster and those expected to die at a later date from cancers due to radiation exposure.
The disaster in Fukushima killed people. In , the Japanese government reported that one worker has since died from lung cancer as a result of exposure from the event. No one died directly from the Fukushima disaster. Instead, most people died as a result of evacuation procedures.
According to Japanese authorities people died due to the impact of the evacuation and stress. Their published rate is 0. The sum of these three data points gives us a death rate of 0. We might consider this an upper estimate. Even with this upper figure, nuclear is still much much lower than the death rate from fossil fuels — times lower than coal.
Despite this, politicians have turned their backs on it in many countries. Nuclear has displaced fossil fuels in the energy mix for half a century. How many deaths has this prevented? But we need to also take into account their longer-term impact on climate change.
There is actually very good news: the safest sources for us today are the same sources that have the smallest impact on the climate. Sometimes the solutions to the large global issues we face come with trade-offs, but not here.
Whether you are concerned about people dying now or the future of the planet, you want the same sources of energy. The visualization here shows this. On the left I have plotted the death rates per unit energy data we looked at previously and on the right you see their greenhouse gas emissions per energy unit. This measure of greenhouse gas emissions considers the total carbon footprint over the full lifecycle; figures for renewable technologies, for example, take into consideration the footprint of the raw materials, transport and their construction.
The world is not facing a trade-off — the safer energy sources are also the least polluting. We see this from the symmetry of the chart. Coal causes most harm on both metrics: it has severe health costs in the form of air pollution and accidents, and emits large quantities of greenhouse gas emissions. Oil, then gas, are better than coal, but are still much worse than nuclear and renewables on both counts. Nuclear, wind, hydropower and solar energy fall to the bottom of the chart on both metrics.
They are all much safer in terms of accidents and air pollution and they are low-carbon options. Fossil fuels have so far dominated our energy systems for a couple of reasons: they kickstarted the Industrial Revolution and since then much of our energy infrastructure has been built around them. This early investment in fossil fuels means they have for a long time been relatively cheap — cheaper than many modern renewables in their infancy.
But today, if we factor in the total costs of fossil fuels — not only the energy costs but also the social cost to our health and the environment — they are much more expensive than the alternatives.
0コメント