im doing a project for school and it asks what are the problems associated with alternative energy sources.
now, i know fossil fuels(coal, oil etc…) create greenhouse gasses but solar power, it seems there is nothing wrong with it
is there anything wrong with it?
More Pages:
- Why are solar and nuclear power considered “alternative” energy sources?
- Solar Producer: What Is The Potential For Alternative Energy In Malaysia? (biomass/fuel, Solar, Nuclear, Wind, Water)? (6/23/2011)
- Solar Energy: What Are The Prospects Of Solar Energy As An Alternative Commercial Source Of Energy Today ? (11/17/2011)
- Solar Power: Solar Power Questions!? (9/9/2011)
- Solar Producer: How Does The AGW Theory, Take Money Away From Big Oil Inc? (10/14/2011)
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Solar panels are very expensive and the art of making them is far from perfect. This is not to mention that they are not effective in all areas of the world, and they are probably not effective all year round (depending on where they are placed).
Our economy relies heavily on fossil fuels. While researching and financing alternative energy resources would probably create more (and more contemporary/practical) jobs than they eliminated, the transition into an economy using alternative energy resources will take quite a long time. Many personnel must be trained in the development, construction, and installing of the panels.
The actual collection of solar power is not detrimental to the environment (i.e. releasing greenhouse gases), but the products to which the energy flows, and how those products are used, can still be hazardous to the environment.
High-level of radioactive waste is the disadvantage of Nuclear Energy Generation.
The most important waste stream from nuclear power plants is spent nuclear fuel. It is primarily composed of unconverted uranium as well as significant quantities of transuranic actinides (plutonium and curium, mostly). In addition, about 3% of it is fission products from nuclear reactions. The actinides (uranium, plutonium, and curium) are responsible for the bulk of the long-term radioactivity, whereas the fission products are responsible for the bulk of the short-term radioactivity
i guess money no body cares about the environment i think so good luck in getting what you want to achieve
Nuclear power is pretty clean, but it has a few negatives.
The main problem is that it requires a non-renewable fuel. If we were to convert all of our power production to nuclear, we’d not be able to sustain that for more than two centuries. It’d be gasoline all over again, albeit cleaner.
The second problem is nuclear waste. Although each reactor provides a fairly small amount of it each year, it needs to be specially stored. Although it’s completely harmless when properly stored, it will need to be stored that way practically for the rest of human existence. There’s a catch, though. Nuclear “waste” actually still has 95% of its energy left. We don’t know how to use it yet, but when we do, all that “waste” becomes new fuel.
The third problem is the fear of a nuclear accident. Modern reactors have so many failsafes and containment systems that they’re pretty much completely safe. The worst case scenario is that a meltdown damages the plant and leaves the area without power. However, people are somewhat afraid of nuclear power, due to the accident which happened with the Chernobyl reactor. Chernobyl was poorly built and maintained, but the fear is still there in the public’s mind, making acceptance of nuclear power difficult.
Solar conflicts with the human desire to live in places with lots of fresh water (rain) or shade (trees). It generally requires some investment, and whether the panels are cells or concentrating, they need to be kept clean and free of dust. This involves some labor.
Nuclear produces *some* very radioactive stuff, and uses a science and technology related to nuclear weapons. Although real, high-megaton warheads require careful science, etc.; the possibility of ‘dirty’ bombs is not so remote, and goes up with the amount of any kind of radioactive waste. Nobody (except maybe people working there) wants to live near a nuclear power plant, and they require even more investment than solar.
nuclear plants are actually very safe, their nuclear waste is however one of the big drawbacks it takes a very long time for it to become safe thousands upon thousands of years so it needs to be stored somewhere and be kept safe for that amount of time needless to say there is no structure so far that can remain secure and also contain barrels of waste for that amount of time. the safety of a nuclear powerplant is not actually a big concern the scenes in movies where powerplants act like nuclear bombs are fictional as nuclear bombs use completley different principals to operate however meltdowns can occur like chernobyl but these are very rare
there is also the problem of NIMBY or (not in my back yard) where people can see the benefits of them but do not want them nearby them so finding areas near enough to send the energy without alot of energy loss without being too close to poulation centers is a difficult task. also the nuclear waste has been used by terrorists where they surround a standard bomb with nuclear waste creating what is called a “dirty bomb” this spreads nuclear waste over large areas and has lasting results.
solar panels are very safe and efficient even in poor lighting conditions they can power a home however in order to power the entire continental united states on a full size map a post stamp represents the amount of solar panels that would be required (if they were all grouped together) also cost is a big factor while the solar panels will essentially pay electricity bills for you it can take around 20 years before a profit is seen leaving it an undesireable option for the poorer people.
P.S. you could also mention hydro electric and windmills they are also good
Good luck with your project
Solar – Some toxic byproducts of panel production. Not yet cost effective. Low efficiency, (but improving.) Area required. Necessity for nighttime power storage.
Nuclear – Very expensive to build. Long term toxic residues of use, (of current designs.) Require special training of personnel to operate safely.
BOTH – EVERYBODY wants the power, but NOBODY wants either “in their backyard.”
nuclear waste (specifically spent fuel) can be drastically reduced by using special reactors like travelling wave reactors which burn up the fuel more completely
the fact that spent fuel is radioactive means there’s a lot of energy left in it.
travelling wave reactors can use depleted uranium and even waste fuel from normal nuclear reactors
Hurdles in using solar power:
1. It’s affected by time(day/night), climatic conditions and geographic location.
2. Initial Investments are high.
3. All technological developments are made by keeping the conventional energy sources in mind. Thus, solar energy cannot be integrated easily with these technologies involving additional cost.
Cons of nuclear energy:
1. Disposal of radioactive waste material is not easy.
2. Working with radioactive substance is hazardous and can cause genetic mutations in humans if they come in contact with such a substance.
3. Controlled reactors are required for generating energy so that the fission chain reaction does not go out of proportion.
4. Radioactive material is rare and available only in a few places of the world.