Thank you Dr. Praksah

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-Green-Sustainable-Clean-Renewable-and-Alternative-Energy-Technologies

https://energytransition.org/2017/01/clean-energy-or-renewable-energy-the-label-matters/

https://www.ukutilitiesltd.com/2017/03/05/the-differences-between-clean-energy-renewable-energy-and-alternative-energy/

http://thegreenenergyblog.com/uncategorized/the-differences-between-clean-renewable-and-alternative-energy

Clean energy refers to any source of power that does not pollute or harm the environment. Clean energy can be distinguished from renewable power in that clean power is focused on carbon emission reduction as a method of counteracting “dirty” energy as a primary goal whereas renewables would be, by definition, focused on the ability to reuse a resource as an ultimate goal.

Interesting question.

Thank you, These sites are very useful

Thank you, These sites are very useful

"Sustainable" and "renewable" are generally referring to specific technologies where: the source of energy cannot be completely consumed within generations, can be replenished faster than it can be consumed or is free. You could say that "sustainable" sources are ones not created by humankind and renewable sources are. In these terms oil would still be human-created because it must be extracted and refined before it's usable.

Thanks

Clean energy is referred to non-polluting energy sources  like wind

, solar power,and hydropower energies.While green energy  

may refers to bioenergy sources  with low emissions harmful

to the environment .

Differences are with respect to ecological environment..

IMHO, they are two phrases that describe the same type of sustainable energy sources i.e. there is no differences. I also guess that they just came from different schools.

I think no different

It is also called Sustainable Chemistry and is directly involved in at least 8 of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals: 3 – Good Health and Well-being; 6 – Clean Water and Sanitation; 7 – Affordable and Clean Energy; 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth; 9 – Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; 12 – Responsible Production and Consumption; 13 – Climate Action; and 17 – Partnership for the Goals.

Absolutely correct

We get "green" energy from natural sources, such as sunlight, wind, rain, rivers, plants, algae and geothermal heat. We can obtain clean energy from traditional sources after detailed treatment of waste.

Can you explain; What are the more traditional sources?

Clean energy sources may pollute a lot during their technological process of creating the facilities. Example the electric fars. They refuce the amiunt of pollution in cities, but the lacatipn where the hatterues are produced or depisut as waste are very affected!! Such sources cobtribute to local reduction of pollution, meaning shifting the pollution from one place

.to another. On my opinion totally non polluting clean sources do not exist! For every source we have to pay a price " with the environment destruction".

I agree Prof. Ioana Lonel Thanks

Thanks

One of my Phd students is researching this area!! Every idea is welcome from all sides! Literature, examples!!

Can you link me with your PhD student prof.?

What are the differences between clean and green energy? This is a very interesting question shared by many scientists as shown below

When energy and/or power issues are regarded within the present low-carbon framework, both words "clean" and "green" are commonly used, including by scientists. However, regarding the way the general publi understand it, it is understood as perfect technologies of which end-users recognize the environment-safe character and/or, moreover, theircomplete sustainability compliance. They have to be handled with extremely great care. My own viewpoint is that "clean" and "green" words, unless they are scientifically evaluated are nothing but "eGologics" (strongly opposite to "ecologics") advertizing topics more than definitely established scientific truth!!

Then, I suggest conscious scientists not to look for their possible small differences better having a key question in mind: when actually used, clean/green energy and/or power are they really permitting to get a positive E.R.O.E.I (Energy Return On Energy Investment) or a real low carbon intensity? Example of questions are shown hereafter :

• One 4 years old example of related question is shown in the present Research Gate website in a question from Michel Owayjan : Are renewable energy technologies really green?
• My own question , however restricted to the so-called "Clean power" , (Research Gate website) about a year ago in a R-D project proposal: "Decarbonated Electricity End-Uses Project: Assessing the Actual CO2/kWh rate". As part of that proposal , a paper is submitted for comments and improvements to the Research Gate scientific Community under the title : " Green Economy versus Clean Power: a sustainable calculation of the “low carbon” intensity is not an option "

Thanks Professor, It is clear statement.

Strongly agree prof. Jacqes. Thanks

Specially regarding Clean Power, may I remind my previous comment. and paper entitled : Green Economy versus Clean Power: a sustainable calculation of the “low carbon” intensity is not an option " as submitted to ResearchGate website. (Draft's Abstract below and Full-text upon request)

Green Economy versus Clean Power: a sustainable calculation of the “low carbon” intensity is not an option

Jacques Roturier (*)

ABSTRACT

Since the “Paris Pledge for Action” (COP 21 – 2015), Climate Changes policies are guided by the Sustainable Development spirit as a worldwide commitment. Through their “Low-Carbon” Decarbonization motto, they result in a rapid implementation of Green Economy issues and, particularly, of Clean Power technologies. In such framework, the present paper is directed to Green Electricity programs through one main question: Are satisfying the present carbon intensity calculation? As well known, a simple calculation is commonly in usage by the power sector industry, agreed by policy-makers too: it is the ratio of CO2 emitted during power plant Operation & Maintenance (O&M) activities to related GROSS electricity generation. Yet ignoring significant part of CO2 emissions, is it to-day really sustainability-compliant? Another method, performed through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology mainly by North America scientists, is more complete. Both of them, however, only regarding the “generated” kWh carbon intensity, are only convenient from a power plant manager viewpoint. Actually, a “consumed” kWh viewpoint cannot be neglected nowadays, most end-user’s easily pointing out these important differences existing in the calculation protocol of both kWh sales price and related CO2 emissions. Nowadays, this may be unaffordable to anyone is consciously viewing the rapid decrease of CO2 emissions as a universal and mandatory commitment and, in particular, those energy and/or electricity final users willing to endorse, as accurately as possible, their own part. A fair knowledge of CO2 savings potential being then more than needed, no doubt that target is hardly reachable presently, until emissions from both Green Electricity generation and demand-side technologies are totally assessed in a complete and reliable way.

For such reason, the carbon intensity calculation would be significantly improved when the “consumed” kWh is nothing but regarded alike any other manufactured industrial product through analyzing in great detail, from generation to end-of-life, every energy cost and environment impact. Two changes, at least, are necessary. Firstly, calculate its carbon intensity at user’s meter (or door for other fuel). The second is an evidence: both direct and indirect CO2 emissions, last ones specially comprising CO2 embodied into the whole equipment and buildings, are included in such calculation. That hopefully expected new approach would only take into account the full amount of both emitted and embodied CO2 emissions, from generated and/or imported electricity to supply and end-of-life on one side and, on another side, total NET number of kWh supplied, including off-grid,. In the present paper, to-day’s common state-of-the-art is analyzed in part 1 while some improvements are suggested in part 2, data from France case-study being shown in both parts. Finally, the present paper may be summarized as follows: in a sustainability compliance framework, it is appropriate (1) to define future carbon intensity through an international protocol (2) to calculate it at user’s meter (3) to record the whole emissions through implementing a CO2/kWh cradle-to-tomb (LCA) rate at each step of the whole kWh delivery chain. Anyone is committed to decrease its CO2 emissions would probably welcome such necessary improvement. In addition, a new basic tool, the “Intrærgy” method, is briefly introduced here, nothing but a rule of thumb ensuring a quick order of magnitude of the carbon intensity. Furthermore, every Green Electricity player would better continue its conscious path by paying an extremely high attention to the “Rosenfeld effect”, having definitely demonstrated those huge benefits resulting from a voluntary energy efficiency policy.

Keywords: COP 21, Power Sector, CO2 Emissions, Green Economy, France energy policy, Intrærgy, Rosenfeld Effect, eGologics

The author dedicates this work to the memory of Pr. Arthur H. Rosenfeld in testimony of sincere gratitude and deep respect (**)

(*) Jacques Roturier, (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jacques_Roturier) is an independent researcher (previously Physics Professor at University of Bordeaux- France). He recently submitted to the ResearchGate community a R-D project: Decarbonated Electricity End-Uses Project: Assessing the Actual CO2/kWh rate”. The present draft, mainly focusing on the need for a fair and accurate calculation of the CO2/kWh rate, summarizes his preliminary remarks.

(**) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur H. Rosenfeld

Thank you very much Prof. I will follow this article.

gplemaptInin in general, they have no differences, but clean energy seems to be a larger concept than green energy, anyway, there are plenty of clean processes that may not belong to green type.

Thanks Hongbo

clean energy refers to sources of energy generation with minimal carbon emissions which can be achieved mainly through energy efficiency in the processes involved while green energy deals with renewable sources of energy (solar, wind) with zero carbon emissions during operation

Thanks Kafayat

Clean energy emphasizes energy efficiency in the consumption of energy during energy intensive processes which includes improvement and modification of devices like turbines, compressors etc while green energy focuses on sustainable energy consumption mostly from renewables like solar and wind.

Thanks

Y

Yes, Correct

Thanks Imran Sir it is good source.

According to the dictionary the definition of green energy: energy that can be produced in a way that protects the natural environment, for example by using wind, water, or the sun.

and the clean energy is defined by: energy, as electricity or nuclear power, that does not pollute the atmosphere when used, as opposed to coal and oil, that do.

So,the clean energy is a green energy

Best wishes

- Green technology would accept little emission while clean prefers a situation of no / neutral pollution.

- Green will cover all technologies , or processes with minute contribute to emissions. The electric car on the national grid ( from fossil ) could be considered green but not clean if the energy production isn’t . Although it adds a net pollution of zero but by extension , with the national grid , it’s a net polluter but lesser than the previous technologies. Wood chip and ethanol are green but not clean as they too contribute pollution but not in the quantities of fossils.

- Clean would be the term used for technology with neutral emissions or no emission at all . Fuel cells do emit water as a by product but water is considered pollution neutral and safe . An electric car charged on solar a national grid is clean tech .

Reference:

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-key-differences-between-Green-Sustainable-Clean-Renewable-and-Alternative-Energy-Technologies

I prefer the broader term: "sustainable energy", which is the one that complies with Agenda 2030 and includes all of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. It includes all energy produced in a sustainable way, also by other sources like biomass and sustainable biofuels not obtained by deforestation nor competing with food. It is not clear that all the energy required in the world could be provided only by hydropower, solar and wind in every country. Also not all wind energy is by itself sustainable. You may not sacrifice any kind of land (for example protected natural reserves) or the sea filling them with generators (For example they can also kill protected bird species, affect navigation or sea life, etc.) Also it is more difficult to energize big airplanes or ships without liquid fuels

Clean energy is produced through means that do not release greenhouse gases or any other pollutants to the environment. Clean energy can be produced from renewable sources but the term is not synonymous with renewable energy i.e. not all renewable energy sources are clean. For example, some of the ways by which geothermal energy, which is renewable, is processed have negative impacts on the environment. On the other hand, green energy refers to energy from renewable sources i.e. for an energy source to be green, it must be renewable.