Which source of the energy is the safest for the environment ? which one do you recommend?. what factors we should consider in choosing an energy source?
Please provide links/articles to support your opinion, thank you.
Dear Nageswara,
According to the table from Forbes report, The safest are:
1- Nucear (90)
2- Wind (150)
3-Solar (440)
The numbers are in Mortality Rate (deaths/ trillionkWhr).
Difficult to say. Based on statistics it is Nuclear. See the attached table.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
Dear Nageswara,
According to the table from Forbes report, The safest are:
1- Nucear (90)
2- Wind (150)
3-Solar (440)
The numbers are in Mortality Rate (deaths/ trillionkWhr).
Dear Behrouz
Safest from the environment point of view will be solar and wind energy. At this point of time they are not economical because of many reasons. Also wind is not as widely available as Solar. Since these are not continuously available you have to plan some storage or demand equalization procedure if planned by utility companies. Storage increases cost. As long as fossil fuels are available, though these are safe will not be used because of their costs.
Dear Nageswara,
You are absolutely right. We have started to use solar energy in Iran .However it is costly. Perhaps with advancement in technology and building cheaper solar cells, it would be more economical in the future.
Hello Behrooz,
Her i would like to add one point
No body knows how much carbon foot print they are buying daily in electronic goods
not knowingly they are purchasing and creating the pollution. is it correct or not .
There are both pros and cons in various renewable energy production, some examples are given below:
1. Nuclear
Pros: doesn’t contribute to green house gas emissions (GHG) or pollutants, efficient power generation (less fuel required)
cons: produces radioactive waste which are harmful to living organisms (can cause cancer, genetic mutation), requires substantial amount of cooling water
2. Hydro electricity (dams)
Pros: sustainable, non-polluting, simpler and cheaper
Cons: impair migration of native species, cause cold water pollution, emit significant amounts of green house gas such as CH4
3. Wind
Pros: sustainable, non-polluting, requires little or no cooling water
Cons: depends on wind velocity, doesn’t produce power when wind is not blowing, can kill birds, can cause noise pollution
4. Solar (sun) –
Pros: sustainable, non-polluting, can be produced in any part of the world
Cons: requires large space, may require substantial amount of cooling water and- solar electricity could be expensive
Dear Golam, thank you for your informative post on Pros and Cons of different energy sources. I have attached a link for further comparison of Pros and Cons.
http://www.energy4me.org/energy-facts/
It's a very interesting question.
I believe the answer should consider all points of view involved. Economic, financial, technical.
Eventually some energy resource can be less secure at an ecological point of view, but should result in a much higher economic outcome.
I would answer: hydropower.
Dear @Behrouz, solar, geothermal, wind, hydro-electric, tidal and wave energies are something that we call eco-friendly (green power). "...All of these power generation techniques can be described as renewable since they are not depleting any resource to create the energy...Solar and wind power are perhaps the safest energy sources, as they harness the natural substances present in the world. Unfortunately, wind and solar power are difficult to harness and do not produce enough power to sustain the modern world."
Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6762161_safest-energy-source_.html#ixzz33FLe47YB
http://www.efficientgreenpower.com/
The responses to this question in a fair manner, you need to understand how the different energy sources are used for the generation of electricity and their impact in the environment. According to the opinion of different experts, all sources of energy have a negative impact in the environment. Many people think that renewable energies such as wind, solar, and hydropower are the safest to produce and use.
In truth, every energy source has dangers and risks. Nuclear power relies on radioactive materials that are potentially lethal if handled imprudently. Petroleum entails such hazards as oil spills and explosions. Fossil-fuel combustion, meanwhile, is believed to contribute to global warming.
Renewable energy technologies are not completely safe, either. Hydroelectric dams kill fish, divert rivers, and threaten ecosystems with soil erosion. And while the operation of solar panels is eminently safe, their manufacture requires mining huge quantities of materials and refining them in ways that release toxins and metals into the atmosphere. When the impact on greenhouse-gas emissions, environmental degradation, and human health and safety of solar energy systems is compared with the nuclear and fossil-energy options, the following can be found: given current technologies, on a standardized energy unit basis, solar energy systems may initially cause more greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental degradation than do conventional nuclear and fossil-energy systems; an ambitious program to utilize solar energy systems in place of nuclear and fossil-fuel systems could, for the next 4 or 5 decades, actually increase environmental degradation. In addition, the production of materials for these technologies involves hazardous substances that must be handled cautiously to avoid environmental damage; in comparing solar energy systems with the conventional alternatives, it is important to recognize the substantial costs, hazardous wastes, and land-use issues associated with solar technologies; based upon risk perceptions and current technologies, the health and safety risks of solar energy systems may be substantially larger than those associated with some fossil- and nuclear-energy resource options.
When contemplating the relative safety of energy production and use, we should also consider the relative benefits. A nuclear power plant may use materials that are more dangerous and require greater security than a wind farm, but it will also produce vastly more power and when you need it. Overall, the enormous benefits derived from nuclear power—which, pound for pound, outweigh those of any other fuel or energy technology—make it worth the risk. In 1998 a Swiss study looked at 13,914 severe accidents, including 4,290 in the energy industry, between 1969 and 1996. This included both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Even including those two highly publicized incidents, the study determined that among conventional energy sources--coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear--nuclear power was by far the safest.
The same goes for coal. Not only is coal dangerous to mine, but its use poses dangers to the environment in the form of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Still, coal, which produces half the nation’s electricity, is so economical and reliable that its critics have not been able to offer realistic alternatives. Wind and solar energy presently are incapable of meeting even one-fiftieth of the generating capacity that we get from coal. The long lead time and capital-intensive process required to build new nuclear power plants mean that the nuclear industry won’t have the capacity to match coal anytime soon. Available domestic natural gas reserves have plateaued, imperiling that fuel’s present position, supplying a fifth of our electricity.
Summing up the following can be stated: All energy sources affect the environment. There is no such thing as a completely “clean” energy source. Getting the energy we need affects our environment in many different ways. Some energy sources have a greater impact than others. Energy is lost to the environment during any energy transformation, usually as heat.
Biofuels: Biomass, Ethanol and Biodiesel
On the surface, biofuels look like an ideal energy solution. Since plants absorb carbon dioxide as they grow, crops could counteract the carbon dioxide released by cars. They are also renewable, and can be planted to replenish supplies.
Unfortunately, it’s not that easy. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to grow crops, make fertilizers and pesticides and process plants into fuel. There is ongoing debate if ethanol from corn provides more energy than it uses for growing and processing the plants. Also, fossil fuels provide much of the energy in biofuels production, so biofuels may not replace as much oil as they use.
Biomass creates harmful emissions like carbon dioxide and sulfur when it is burned, but causes less pollution than fossil fuels. Even burning wood in a fireplace or stove can create pollutants like carbon monoxide. Burning municipal solid waste, or garbage that would otherwise go into a landfill, can also cause potentially dangerous emissions. Combustion of these materials must be carefully controlled. Disposing of the resulting ash can also pose a problem, as it may contain harmful metals like lead and cadmium.
Ethanol is often added to gasoline, and while these mixtures burn cleaner than pure gasoline, they also have higher “evaporative emissions” from dispensing equipment and fuel tanks. These emissions contribute to ozone problems and smog. Burning ethanol also creates carbon dioxide.
Biodiesel creates less sulfur oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons when burned that traditional petroleum diesel. But biodiesel creates more nitrogen oxide than petroleum diesel.
Coal
Coal mining has the potential to harm air, water and land quality if it is not done with proper care. Acidic water may drain from abandoned mines underground, and the burning of coal causes the emission of harmful materials including carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury. “Clean coal” technology is being developed to remove harmful materials before they can affect the environment, and to make it more energy-efficient so less coal is burned, but it is not enough. The coal industry also restores mined land to or prepares it for more productive uses once surface mining is done.
Geothermal
Geothermal power plants have relatively little environmental impact—they burn no fuel to create electricity. These plants do create small amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfur compounds, but geothermal emissions are far smaller than those created by fossil fuel power plants.
Hydropower
While hydropower does not cause water or air pollution, it does have an environmental impact: Hydroelectric power plants may harm fish populations, change water temperature and flow (disturbing plants and animals) and force the relocation of people and animals who live near the dam site. Some fish, like salmon, may be prevented from swimming upstream to spawn. Technologies like fish ladders help salmon go up over dams and enter upstream spawning areas, but the presence of hydroelectric dams changes their migration patterns and hurts fish populations. Hydropower plants can also cause low dissolved oxygen levels in the water, which is harmful to river habitats. Reservoirs may also lead to the creation of methane, a harmful greenhouse gas.
Petroleum (Oil and Gas)
Great strides have been made to ensure that oil and gas producers make as little impact as possible on the natural environments in which they operate. These include drilling multiple wells from a single location to minimize damages to the surface, using environmentally sound chemicals to stimulate well production and restoring the surface as nearly as possible to pre-drilling conditions (as required by landowners and state or federal agencies, who often must approve the company’s completion of restoration activities).
When many people think of oil and the environment, they think of oil spills. The reality is that the exploration and production of oil rarely create an oil spill. Most oil spills occur primarily during transportation, mostly involving the tankers that are used to move oil from where it is produced to where consumers need it. But oil spills from transportation have declined significantly during the past few years, and the growing use of double-hulled tankers provides extra protection. Another source of oil spills during transportation is pipelines. Unfortunately, a major reason for spills from pipelines in developing countries is civil unrest. Weather, such as hurricanes, is another factor in pipeline-related spills.
Urban runoff and natural seeps are large sources of oil pollution. Urban runoff comes from rain washing away oil drips from cars or machinery and people pouring used oil into the gutter and using other improper disposal methods. Natural seepage is actually the largest single source of petroleum inputs in marine environments totaling 47%.
When burned, petroleum products emit carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide and other air toxins, all of which have a negative effect on the environment.
Solar
Solar energy produces no air or water pollution or greenhouse gases. However, it has some indirect impacts on the environment. For example, the manufacturing of photovoltaic cells (PV) produces some toxic materials and chemicals. Ecosystems can also be affected by solar systems. Water from underground wells may be required to clean concentrators and receivers, and to cool the generator, which may harm the ecosystem in dry climates.
Nuclear Power
Nuclear power plants produce no air pollution or carbon dioxide, but they do produce byproducts like nuclear waste and spent fuels. Most nuclear waste is low level (for example, disposable items that have come into contact with small amounts of radioactive dust), and special regulations are in place to prevent them from harming the environment. But some spent fuel is highly radioactive and must be stored in specially designed facilities. In addition to the fuel waste, much of the equipment in the nuclear power plants becomes contaminated with radiation and will become radioactive waste after the plant is closed. These wastes will remain radioactive for many thousands of years, which may not allow re-use of the contaminated land.
Nuclear power plants use large quantities of water for steam production and for cooling, affecting fish and other aquatic life. Likewise, heavy metals and salts can build up in the water used in the nuclear power plant systems. When water is discharged from the power plant, these pollutants can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life.
Wind
Wind is a clean energy source. It produces no air or water pollution because no fuel is burned to generate electricity. The most serious environmental impact from wind energy may be its effect on bird and bat mortality. Wind turbine design has changed dramatically in the last couple of decades to reduce this impact. Turbine blades are now solid, so there are no lattice structures that entice birds to perch. Also, the blades’ surface area is much larger, so they don’t have to spin as fast to generate power. Slower-moving blades mean fewer bird collisions.
Dear Jorge,
Thank you very much for your very comprehensive answer. You described the risks associated with each energy source quite well.
I am wondering if someone could offer a quantitative comparisons of these different sources of energy ? The one suggested by dear Nageswara is a good example but it considers only the death and does not display the other environmental risks.
It is possible to have a measure for environmental risk associated with each source?
Dear Behrouz. I think that is going to be very difficult to quantify the environment damage by each one of the different energy source mentioned above.
We can say the same thing for others renewable energy sources. They are safe for the environment.
Wind and solar energy are safe for the environment without these to energy we can not live. Hydroelectricity have some problem of noise pollution.
Renewable Energy - Environmentally-friendly and Low Cost Energy from Inexhaustible Sources!
"The possibilities to use renewable energy are still developing: energy resources evolve dynamically as a function of human engineering ingenuity. There is still a lot to do with regards to installing as well as developing alternative energy production – energy demand is increasing worldwide, day by day with ongoing population growth and industrialisation..."
http://en.reset.org/knowledge/renewable-energy-environmentally-friendly-and-low-cost-energy-inexhaustible-sources
Solar energy is the safest energy in the world.?
How do you know? Any resource to confirm your claim?.
There are many sources of energy. Wind, solar, power, oil, natural gas, coal, petroleum and biofuels all provide electricity and energy for the world. There is much debate over which form of energy is the safest. According to data and statistics alone, the safest form of energy is actually nuclear power. There are many studies that point to the safety and usability of nuclear power.
http://www.ehow.com/about_6762161_safest-energy-source_.html
Thank you dear Mozhgan. Yes, it seems that many studies refer to nuclear energy as the safest source.
Here is another study:
Nuclear power is safest way to make electricity, according to study
"Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in.
Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution among members of the public, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness, according to a study of the health effects of electricity generation in Europe.
“The costs of fossil fuels come out quite high, while the costs for nuclear generally come out low,” said Anil Markandya, an economist at the University of Bath in England and scientific director of the Basque Centre for Climate Change in Spain, who co-authored the study published in the Lancet in 2007."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/nuclear-power-is-safest-way-to-make-electricity-according-to-2007-study/2011/03/22/AFQUbyQC_story.html
I think the safest energy is the maritim energy that means the movement of water waves. It is initiated by the attraction of the moon gravity as well as by the wind which indirectly is a consequence of the sun radiation. see also: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Use_of_Maritim_Energy_the_Future
With best regards
Michael
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_Use_of_Maritim_Energy_the_Future
Dear Michael,
The Question is about comparison of safety for various sources of energy. Wikipedia page list environmental risks associated with marine energy developments. I have not come across a report on its safety comparison with other sources.
Common environmental concerns associated with marine energy developments include:
- The risk of marine mammals and fish being struck by tidal turbine blades;
- The effects of EMF and underwater noise emitted from operating marine energy devices;
- The physical presence of marine energy projects and their potential to alter the behavior of marine mammals, fish, and seabirds with attraction or avoidance;
- The potential effect on nearfield and farfield marine environment and processes such as sediment transport and water quality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_energy
Dear Behrouz,...
you are absolutely right, ... any human activity using energy sources causes an additional effect somewhere else. Regarding only the human health there might be a difference to a wider perspective including animals and plants.
An interesting aspect would be to compare the safety aspect in fauna and flora for the commercial use for natural materials and foods in relation to the safety aspect in your question.
With best regards
Michael
In my opinion, without any literature the preference order is hydropower, solarpower, windpower then biofuels with respect to green environment and sustainability.
My country (Portugal) has great investment in eolic (wind) and solar energy... So far, in theory, they are considered "safe"...
Dear Behrouz Ahmadi-Nedushan,
In my opinion, Nuclear energy is the safest form of power.
Which is the safest source of energy?
Deaths per trillion kWhr of energy produced:
Coal: 100,000
Oil: 36,000
Biofuel: 24,000
Natural Gas: 4,000
Hydro: 1,400
Solar: 440
Wind: 150
Nuclear: 90
These data point the source of the safest energy!
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-many-deaths-does-trillion-kwhr-energy-cost-jorn-mineur?trkInfo=VSRPsearchId%3A577811291459671667088%2CVSRPtargetId%3A8508991926286792737%2CVSRPcmpt%3Aprimary&trk=vsrp_influencer_content_res_name
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/lowering-deaths-per-terawatt-hour-for.html
Thank you dear @ Ljubomir for very interesting links, the numbers are the same at forbe's report posted previously. Here is another link who reports nuclear as the safest form of energy.
Ranking the Killer Energy Sources
"Kilowatts kill, but depending on the method of production, some do more damage than others. No energy source is completely safe, nor completely green, but what is the safest energy source of them albelveryone is familiar with carbon footprints and may have seen comparisons of different energy sources depending on their footprint. In these comparisons, coal ranks the highest, with a carbon footprint of about 900g of CO2 per kWhr of energy produced. The winners are wind and nuclear, with a very small carbon footprint, mainly consisting of concrete production, construction and mining of steel and uranium. Sometimes we hear that biomass is carbon neutral as it ties CO2 from the air, but when production losses are taken into the calculation, biomass is a loser. However, what is the real price of a carbon footprint? In modern day terms, it is hard to value as it is one of those someone-has-to-pay-eventually prices.
The value of life
Life, on the other hand, is valued. However, energy’s “deathpring” is rarely discussed. The energy deathprint tells the number of people killed by producing 1 kWhr of energy. Again, in this race coal is the looser and wind and nuclear are the winners. Wait, did he just say nuclear?
Yes that’s right, despite what the media might have you believe, nuclear power is one of the safest energy sources that we have. So, how can this be? Coal, oil and biomass all produce small carbon particulates when they burn, causing upper respiratory distress (think of black lung). Especially in developing countries this is a problem. In fact, The World Health Organization (WHO) has called biomass burning in developing countries a major global health issue (WHO int). With solar energy, hundreds of people die each year during the installation and maintenance of solar panels. There are also cases of major fires in the production lines, as some of the material used are highly flammable. Furthermore, each year tens of thousands of people die from silicosis, a lung disease that silica miners are exposed to (silica is a raw material used in solar panels). Of course, most of the silica mined does not go to making solar panels, but a portion of it does. These add to the death count caused by solar panels. Deaths from wind and nuclear are also often related to the mining and transportation of raw materials, but are significantly less than in the other sources of energy, as seen in the table....."
P.S . the table is the same table as Forbes.
P.S. please notice that I have asked for supporting documents.
Please provide links/articles to support your opinion. Thank you.
http://www.myscience.fi/index.php?id=516
In my opinion the Solar Energy and Wind Energy are the best harmless sourses of energy
In my point of view, Solar Energy is the safest for our Planet.
Because it is in-line with our Environment.
We are obtaining and living with essential benefits from the Sun. Other Energies are actually directly or indirectly related with Solar Energy.
I am looking at the table provided by Ljubomir (April 3). It is true that coal is dangerous (100,000) because of respiratory diseases. I am a bit surprised: why oil and biofuel go next? Is there an account for car accidents, or only pollution effect? Also surprised to see nuclear (90) below solar and wind. Well, some birds may be dead from collision with wind mills, but I do not know about any helicopter crash with them so far. Even more surprised with solar. Nuclear danger is indeed difficult to count. Who knows how many deaths will come in future caused by Chernobyl and recent Fukushima disaster? And without these 2 cases nuclear seems to be rather safe (apart from danger to mine uranium, often criminals work there). So here we have incomplete statistics, both in frequency of such events and multi-dimensional consequences.
To summarize, I am skeptical about this table, although I agree that nuclear danger is overvalued by mass media today (so that Germany decided to skip and Japan is in doubt), but meanwhile the USA and France continue to use it at a large scale.
I think the safest for the environment is solar, but not photovoltaics based on silicon but solar cells and supercaps based on carbon. Totally natural, cheap and hey...the sun pays the bill!
Fusion power: safe and very low-carbon!
Many studies have looked at the potential impact of fusion power on the environment and at the possible risks associated with operating large-scale fusion power plants. The results show that fusion can be a very safe and sustainable energy source...
Fusion power does not produce any greenhouse gases (GHGs) or other atmospheric pollutants during operation. It offers a route to large-scale base load energy production with no negative impact on the climate.
The fuel consumption in a fusion power station is extremely low. To generate 7 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, a 1000-megawatt fusion power station would consume about 100 kg of deuterium and three tonnes of lithium per year. This compares to the 1.5 million tonnes of coal in an equivalent fossil-fuel plant.
Fusion offers an almost limitless fuel supply with the fuel found in all parts of the world, and no negative climate change issues...
http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/euratom/index_en.cfm?pg=fusion§ion=safety-and-environment
All electricity generation technologies generate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas emissions. To compare the impacts of these different technologies accurately, the total CO2 amounts emitted throughout a system’s life must be calculated. A ‘carbon footprint’ is the total amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, emitted over the full life cycle of a process or product. It is expressed as grams of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour of generation (gCO2eq/kWh), which accounts for the different global warming effects of other greenhouse gases.
· Fossil fueled electricity generation has the largest carbon footprint (up to 1,000gCO2eq/kWh). Most emissions arise during plant operation.
· Low carbon technologies (biomass, photovoltaics, wave and tidal, wind, nuclear) a have low life cycle carbon emissions (
There are many sources of energy. Wind, solar, power, oil, natural gas, coal, petroleum and biofuels all provide electricity and energy for the world. There is much debate over which form of energy is the safest. According to data and statistics alone, the safest form of energy is actually nuclear power. There are many studies that point to the safety and usability of nuclear power...
There are many benefits to nuclear power other than just the safety benefits. Nuclear power is clean, efficient and effective. Nuclear power also does not emit harmful emissions into the environment like coal and oil power. Nuclear power does not require daily ingestion of resources like coal power. Nuclear power is powered by uranium, which is a natural substance that is abundant in the world.
https://bizfluent.com/about-6762161-safest-energy-source-.html
A renewable energy project in eastern Oregon is being touted as the first in the U.S. to combine wind and solar power with battery storage. The cleanest one!
Adding battery storage to wind and/or solar farms is becoming more prevalent as power generators work to overcome one of the biggest challenges with renewables—their intermittency, as wind farms produce power only when the wind blows, and solar farms only when the sun shines...
https://www.powermag.com/solar-wind-storage-come-together-in-oregon-project/?printmode=1
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Mechanical Engineering