Do you think that our world will reach 100% of its electricity needs from clean energy sources?
Dear Dr Issam Shabani , Very futuristic question. I do not think so. The nuclear energy (technology) will evolve - and our cars will come loaded with 15 year nuclear fuel. Another dimension is that being 100 percent green is (assuming that we destroy the non-green units) dangerous to the existence of humankind. At least say 10 percent of energy should come from the non-green sources. Warm regards Yoganandan G
No I never believed that this task can be achieved in the views of world. But certain extended in few developed countries..
I assume that the word "clean" is equivalent to "renewable". If not, please give a definition for "clean energy".
This said, please do not forget that before the industriaql era, the only energy carriers used by mankind were renewable (sun, wind, wood, food for animals and ourselves). By definition, non renewable energy carriers such as oil, gas, coal and even fissile elements, tritium and lithium used in fission and fusion power plants will be exhausted some day if we use them, since the earth contains a limited quantity of these. Therefore, the mankind will use soon or later only renewable energy carriers, not only for producing electricity but also for other purposes needing energy transformation.
Happily, this is possible up to a given limit, since the solar radiation (the most important renewable energy source) received by the earth is 10'000 times the energy use by mankind.
Note: Even the so-called renewable energy sources that are the sun and the internal heat of the earth are not absolutely renewable, but will last much longer than the so-called non renewable energy carriers.
of course, if new applications are realized, such as the new generation of photovoltaic panels (organic) and such smart hybrid systems
The major "source" of energy in the future will be NegaWatts - the energy which is not used.
Renewable energy can not and will not replace fossil fuels except in specific niche applications
Here's an excellent over view:
https://youtu.be/iQeK04WOGaA
Of course, since at one point we have to. However, the "clean" power production will be more expensive. This will be a strong driver for more efficient solutions and we will probably use less energy per person (e.g. less leisure travels to exotic destinations, better insulated buildings in cold climates, swith of the light when no one is in the room, etcetera). I don't think we will run out of oil, coal and natural gas but the last reserves will be too expensive to extract.
I am not in favour of nuclear power but if the next generation of nuclear power can use the radioactive waste from todays fusion plants as fuel, then one could see it as a waste management solution, at least until the "green" alternatives are sufficiently developed.
Bonjour ,
A mon avis la terre contient 3/4 d'eau pourquuoi ne pas utilser cette energie et une autre source inepuisable c'est la gravité de la terre pourquoi ne oas utiliser l'energie gravitationelle par exemple dans le monde portuaire les contneurs pesent 30 tonnes et pour les lever ca demande beacoiup d'energie alors que pour les deposer sur terre ca ne demandera pas bcp d'energie car l'enegie gravitationelle =M*G*H
M: masse gravitationelle :30 tonnes
G: gravité 9.8g/:
H: la hauteur parraport au sol / dans le cas du port la hauteur est 20 metre entre le navire et le sol approximativement.
donc E:9.8*30 000 000*20=5.880.000.000 watt.
on peut conserver cette energie dans des batterie et l'utiliser pour soulever les conteneurs .
et je pense que cette energie est inépuisable on peut utiliser aussi cette énergie dans les barages avec l'eau avec lutilisation des turbines qui roulent et produisent de l'énergie .
I believe it is to be seen realistically and the question is very relevant. The known world fossil fuel reserve is expected to last another 100 years or so and the decline in further discoveries of new fossil fuel reserve is not very encouraging. Fossil fuel is meeting major part of the energy need in the world for last 60 years or so since when the world energy consumption has been on rapidly increasing. Present generation speed of alternate energy, minus nuclear energy, cannot keep pace with the increasing demand of energy worldwide if we need to maintain the momentum of growth and development without fossil fuel. If we have to achieve the goal of 100% replacement then to my mind three things have to happen simultaneously. First extend the 100 years window as much as possible though energy conservation, not only by technological excellence but also by human intervention (It is an ignored aspect in energy conservation). Secondly Govts. must invest heavily to encourage alternative energy development in all possible ways and in full capacity. Third, convince the group that will oppose nuclear power for limited period usage to support the short fall between demand and supply on the process of 100% replacement. Remember the world will not have fossil fuel after 100 years or so and that is for sure as it looks like at this point in time.
As far as I understand your question, I would say firstly that for 0.1 % of the whole Planet inhabitants, those humans owning 90 % or the world resources, the question is unsignificant! All of them are compliant to "Clean" or "Dirty" resources.
Secondly, and much more seriously, the word "Clean" is to be used by medias only not by Science. If it means that such energy sources are totally safe of any pollution when arriving from the Sun, I OKay it. However, it s'ld be clear that when their generation results from any (more or less dirt) transforming process and, moreover, when they are delivered to satisfy any end-use through an equipment, the so-called "Clean" has induced a more or less great environmental impact
Then, may I suggest to better replace "Clean energy sources" by LEI (Low Environmental Impact) energy sources
Jacques
Hello , In my opinion the earth contains 3/4 of water why you do not use this energy and another inexhaustible source is the gravity of the earth why do not use gravitational energy for example in the port world the storytellers weigh 30 tons and for the lever it requires a lot of energy while to deposit them on earth it does not require a lot of energy because the gravitational energy = M * G * H M: gravitational mass: 30 tons G: gravity 9.8g /: H: the parraport height to the ground / in the case of the port the height is approximately 20 meters between the ship and the ground. so E: 9.8 * 30,000,000 * 20 = 5,880,000,000 watt. sur can store this energy in batteries and use it to lift containers. and I think this energy is inexhaustible on can also use this energy in the dams with the water with the use of the turbines that run and produce energy.
1. Scientifically speaking, indicators is in the favor of replacing non-renewable energy sources with renewable energy sources.
2. Logically and practically, this will be extremely hard, we have world governments and very strong stable international trades between countries with non-renewable energy sources, putting this decision into practice, is 10x more strict than COVID-19 border close decisions. We have countries that need years to just make the foundation of renewable energy power plants like Iraq, it has no proper renewable energy power plant built at all by the government , let along producing the electricity of their whole country from renewable energy sources, it will be more severe than the sudden COVID-19 pandemic spread which no-one was prepared for, so countries running completely out of non-renewable energy sources will face the same issue like the countries that wasn't prepared for COVID-19 at all
3. Academically, I don't believe the word 100% is academically applicable anywhere in our world, there will always be a disorder and waste in any system in the universe based on the law of thermodynamics
It is technically possible to achieve this.
Economic profitability is another issue that can be discussed.
The environmental aspect is also important and it will affect the increasing use of RES.
The political aspect is most important here. And depending on the policies, the pace of the transition to RES will also depend.
First we need to make a proper definition what means "clean", as it is not the same as "renewable".
And we also need to consider environmental footprints based on a complete LCA cycle - from materials collecting up to the decommissioning
Considering the imminent increase in the demand for electricity, especially for electric vehicles, I think that we will not be able to generate 100% of electricity from clean sources, or even from renewable sources.
I agree with Jiri Jaromir Klemeš.
There is no "clean energy" as such. We can talk about renewables, although some of them have very large emissions.
I still think that it is technically possible to fully meet the needs for electricity from renewable sources. I did not mention the time horizon at all. Finally, imagine that there are no classic energy sources. Do you think the world would stop? We see some habits and jobs changing drastically at this time of COVID-19. The second fact is that transport and industry will increasingly focus on low-energy systems. More and more attention will be paid to energy efficiency. Just as drastic changes were in the 20th century, so will they be in the 21st century. We can't even imagine what awaits us.
No I do not think it can reach through the clean energy. Even developed countries will achieve the target, developing and low income countries can not bare the capital required for such implementations, since clean energy required in an average of three times capital than the fossil fuel power generation systems.
In my opinion, only energy carriers considered as renewable are "clean", and, by definition, non renewable energy carriers such as coal, oil, gas and uranium will be exhausted if used. In addition, all these are unclean, since they release wastes that are dangerous for the climate or our environment. Therfore, soon or later, the whole mankind will use renewable energy agents only, their basic sources being the sun and the internal heat of the earth, and most of the processes transforming solar radiation or geothermal energy into useable energy agents such as electricity or heat are clean, that is do not change too much our environment.
In short, soon or later our electricity will come from renewable sources, much "cleaner" that non renewable ones.
The only "clean energy" is saved energy, i.e. energy which was not needed to be generated
The context of the satisfaction of electricity demand in the world has many aspects to analyze; on the one hand, environmental problems such as global warming and the effects on biological environments, including human beings, will make the investigation more in-depth and the promotion of energy projects with less environmental impact will be greater and greater; however, the economic and political interests that exist on the exploitation of fossils will make it very slow, the reserves will be depleted and the time comes when the use of oil is definitely not a business for the petrochemical industry, it will be until that moment in which it could be estimated if the demand can be met with renewable, clean and low-impact energy.
Technically it is possible to supply electricity with renewable sources but we have to bear in mind that energy systems depend on international organizations, governments and global economies that together, unfortunately decide the course of transformation.
@Jiri: You are right: Anything that does not need energy transformation will not pollute as well. However, energy transformation allows doing something, and nothing can be done without energy transformation.
It should be precised that energy (together with mass) is conserved, and energy cannot be either produced or destroyed, it can only be transformed form on of its form into other forms. For example, the energy from solar radiation can be transfromed partly into electricity, the remaining part being transformed into heat.
In a nuclear power plant, a small part of the Uranium mass is transformed into heat, and a part of this heat is used in a vapour turbine to produce electricity, the remaining being evacuated into the cooling tower. The remaining mass of the uranium is in the radioactive waste.
I do not think that the world can cover its electrical energy needs from 100% clean energy sources at the present time or in the near future
# Renewable energy, often referred to as clean energy.
Solar energy, Wind energy, Hydro energy, Tidal energy, Biomass energy, etc.
I think world will never reach 100% of its electricity needs from clean energy sources.
Renewable energy, often referred to as clean energy, comes from natural sources. Wind, solar, and hydroelectricity are three renewable sources of energy. Renewable energy is useful energy that is collected from renewable resources (energy from sources that are naturally replenishing). Wind energy is a clean energy source, which means that it doesn't pollute the air like other forms of energy.
Sun is the huge source of clean energy it provides 2500 times more than the Global energy requirements.It can full fill 100% world energy requirement by developing the technology and easiness of system
It is only a question of time. 100% will certainly not be reached next year or next decenal, but it shall be reached anyway when the "dirty " energy agents such as coal, oil, gas and uranium will be exhausted! And the mankind (not the planet, which will survive anyway for 4 billion years) has a strong interest to NOT exhaust the "dirty" agents to avoid a catastrophic climate warming and problems with radioactive wastes (e.g. the plutonium produced until today, if diluted all over the world, will overpass the allowed concentration).
It may be possible that world will reach 100% electricity need form clean energy source only if we'll built nuclear fusion plant otherwise renewable energy sources are not clean.
@Naimish: Which is your definition of "clean"? Even fusion such as that in the sun produces wastes, but the waste of the fusion reactions in the sun either remain in the sun or are dispersed in the space (a very small fraction reaches the earth). In addition, today's fusion plants use lithium which cannot be recycled after use.
If I take Jacques Roturier's definition, the only LEI energy carriers are renewable, hence those resulting from the transformation of solar radiation (windmills, hydraulic power plants, biomass, photovoltaics) or maybe geothermal energy if appropriate caution is taken to remain LEI during the transformation into electicity.
When it comes to energy, "clean" seems to be quite a broad word. Although research on energy is directed towards green, one thing is for sure; even the previously conceived forms/sources of energy would definitely be focused towards energy generation in the most safest, clean and sustainable route. This is definitely a win-win in the future, viewing it from any and every energy perspective. Therefore, the answer would be a 'Yes' for me.
Depends on political willingness and financial requirements - but it is possible!
This will happen when all the people of the world understand the meaning of the benefits of this energy.
The understanding is highly desirable, however, money matters already a couple of thousand years
I hope so, but at the moment government policies are not enough, we need to implement a change of mentality and a long-term strategic vision towards sustainability.
Yes, in some places 100% renewables have been reported.
You may read the following paper:
Article Secondary Voltage Control Application in a Smart Grid with 1...
Best wishes,
Omar
However, renewability is not the target, the minimum impact on the environment is.
BTW the coal is also renewable, just the cycle is a couple of milion years
From proven reserves and todays use, we have coal for a litle more than a century from now, and natural gas , oil and uranium for a litle more than half a century. Moreover, if we burn all that coal, oil and gas, we will put in the atmosphere twice as much CO2 than until today, and the global warming will be awful. The planet will surely not die, but our human society certainly!
Therefore, soon or later, our electricity SHALL be produced EVERYWHERE from other ressources, i.e solar and geothermal that are renewable, and the sooner, the better!
No i dont think so. Too many factors at play. Money, politics, mindset, education, resources, infrastructure, socio economics. Etc
Claude-Alain Roulet
Uranium proliferates and unlikely to end at any point. The coal burning is the risky source must be already history, we cannot anyhow phase it as an option anymore. The other sources are recommended for climatic Conditions solution.
To Sachin: There is no factor: if we don't change quickly (within less than 30 years) to renewables, our society (or civilization) is likely dead or at least deeply transformed!
To Fatema: Uranium is made (or proliferate) in stars and the limited amount available on the earth is a remain from a supernova. It cannot be renewed within the life of the mankind. However, only U238 is now used in nuclear power plants, and a large reserve of U235 could be used if transmuted into the most toxic and artificial Pu (as it was tempted and abandonned in France). Who wants this?
Jiri Jaromir Klemeš right. Renewable or not, matter is to minimise the impact .
Also may I add this joke I just thought about word clear.
To be clean for the sake of idea of clean;
If the cleaning water source of pond of water is contaminated, washing in it to be clean for sale of perception of cleaning would rather pollute one's self more make one I'll.
Same as for the Energy. What is clean energy source. Politicise isn't it.
We have walked far ahead with out energy habit now we cannot retract back.
Even our nuclear production off atomic source is producing waste. What is clean to be clean with. Climate change has come to a tricky position already. I am afraid I sound like a frick.
Plutonium also used with uranium by fission. Thorium Would be more cleaner with fusion idea with less waste.
It's not the energy sourse only the concern the concern is climatic factor. What ever waste we accumulated are threat to us and therefore we must use our own accumulation to use into energy type ie, methane.
There biochar already in use.
Hydrology source inplaced.
Volcanic is another also our experts dared to functioned.
Graeme Snooks (researchgate.net) promotes the solar revolution, a direct conversion of solary energy from space.
The Giant Red Light.
I was going to add before.
The coal must be made history.
Clean energy and sustainability is not our planet’s problem but people’s problem. Two hundreed years ago, all energy sources were clean: we used wind to power our ships and mills, used animals for transporting goods and people and burned wood for heating. Now, we are attempting to return to the clean energy again.
.... I sincerely trust that our future is always oriented more and more..., towards a world of renewable energy ...
Yes it can be full fill by Renewal energy like solar.the total consumption of energy worldwide 23398 Tera watt hour approx where as solar energy falling on earth surface is 2500 times the world energy consumption. If we can use technology or we can develop such types of Technology that can utilize the sun energy. We can full fill the world energy requirements 100%
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Energy
- Energy-Generating Resources
- Renewable Energy