Fossil fuel v alternative energy

Can Alternative Energy Effectively Replace Fossil Fuels?

Whether alternative energy sources such as biofuels, hydrogen, solar, geothermal, or nuclear energy can meet energy demands better than finite fossil fuels such as oil and coal remains hotly debated.

Proponents of alternative energy argue that fossil fuels are inefficient, unsustainable, environmentally destructive, and the primary contributor to global climate change. They say renewable energies are a viable and immediately needed alternative to fossil fuel use that could boost the US economy and reduce reliance on foreign energy sources.

Opponents contend that many technological hurdles have to be overcome before alternative energy can replace even a small portion of the power provided by fossil fuels. They say that fossil fuels will last hundreds of years longer, be made increasingly efficient, remain the most economical choice, and that reliance on inefficient alternative energies will hurt the economy.



Discuss!


@Chris;

Gas, oil and coal are the only energies which actually work and are economically viable. The truth is, despite the nonsense and downright lies we were taught in school about peak coal and 50 years left, new sources such as shale gas are being found constantly and there's sea exploration, deep sea exploration and huge areas like Siberia and the Antarctica that we are yet to explore for oil, gas and coal. Hell, oil deposits are still being found in Texas and eastern Saudi Arabia and they're some of the most explored places on the planet when it comes to energy. I remember hearing/reading once that Great Britain alone has 300 years worth of coal deposits remaining.

In terms of reliance on other foreign powers, this is already beginning to end if you look at the international oil price over the last say 3 years as shale gas and open extraction has come online in notably America and Canada: something that worries the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia a lot as their revenues are no longer meeting state spending and they're using up their cash reserves. This is the most worrying thing about energy in the world today, not the myth of global warming but rather what happens on a geopolitical level if the House of Saud and others fall to Wahabbists if the Kingdom runs out of cash? What then? That's the real issue in all this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYj5baVfB0Y

Sums my view up. I have no problem if we're still using fossil fuels in 2040, 2070, 2150 or 2500.

This is the point where you see I'm very opinionated...

Okay so fossil fuels may be cheaper, but there's the matter of global warming to be considered. In 2003, 20,000 people died thanks to a massive heatwave in Europe. Also, climate change causes colder weather too - places like Greenland and Sweden may become uninhabitable thanks to colder weather in 20, 30, 40 years time. Let me explain this using a conservatory advert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--vLEmZVLiI
So the ozone layer acts like glass - keeping heat in when needed, and keeping heat out when needed. We're basically turning that into plastic, so it gets too hot and too cold. This GIF should help explain the ~fact~ of climate change:
http://i66.tinypic.com/24ew9dy.gif

People in countries already across the world (including places in Europe like France and the UK) are already dying from record hot and cold temperatures. Glaciers are melting fast, which means rising sea temperatures, which means by 2100 places on the coast will be underwater if we don't change something now. It's estimated by the UN Refugee Agency that 250,000,000 people will be displaced because of climate change by 2050. Let's put that into perspective - 1984 to 2017 is what 2017 is to 2050. Earth could also warm by 6 degrees by 2100. Most scientists agree the point where things get really serious is 3 degrees rise. And we're already at 1. And the population is growing.

And for the person who's going to comment saying renewable energy looks ugly or disturbs wildlife, I know power stations are the prettiest thing and smoke is lovely to breathe in, especially considering half of the world's animals have been killed of since to 1970, largely thanks to global warming!

I don't see why it has to be an either/or situation, it would surely be best to have a mix of fossil fuels (for main power since the infrastructure is there already) while building up some of the better alternatives - nuclear should be invested in if the starting cash can be found, solar is obviously dependent on there being some sunlight but is genuinely excellent for personal/local use and becoming very affordable, and hydro is always useful to have for backups just like we currently do here. It's not just that environmental issues are building up, it's just plain sense to not put all your eggs in one big burning furnace of a basket