Five Alternative Sources of Energy and the Pros and Cons of Each

November 27th, 2009 |

As the world reels under the impact of global warming, the necessity for alternative sources of energy seems even more urgent. With the cost (financial as well as environmental) of using traditional fossil fuels increasing day by day, mankind’s survival depends on exploiting alternative, renewable sources of energy. Here, we take a look at some of these sources, and the pros and cons of each.

1. Solar Energy

Pros: Present everywhere. Limitless, clean, renewable and sutainable.

Cons: Current technology to exploit solar power is very expensive. Requires large land area to be fully utilized. Not useful on rainy or cloudy days, or in areas that do not get adequate sunlight.

2. Wind Energy

Pros: Present everywhere, limitless, and renewable. Wind power is a very clean source of energy.

Cons: Like solar power, requires a very large land area to be of actual use. Wind strength not the same everywhere; can only be exploited where the wind speed is high enough. Wind mills are an eyesore and destroy the landscape.

3. Nuclear Energy

Pros: Clean, sustainable, renewable. Can be tapped anywhere.

Cons: Expensive. The radioactive waste produced by nuclear power plants is very dangerous and almost impossible to dispose off. Still, one of the most promising energy sources in wide use today.

4. Hydroelectric Energy

Pros: Clean, virtually limitless, sustainable.

Cons: Expensive. Can be tapped only at large waterfalls. Requires huge physical infrastructure. Diffifulty in transporting produced power.

5. Geothermal Energy

Pros: Clean, virtually limitless.

Cons: Can be tapped only in regions where it is available (which are few and far in between), limiting its effectiveness. Difficult to tap. Not very sustainable or practical.

<tr>

John is a blogger who has been writing online for 3 years. His latest blog is about cable amplifier. Check it out here:

Cable Amplifier.

Recommended Sites

  1. One Response to “Five Alternative Sources of Energy and the Pros and Cons of Each”

  2. By DJ on Nov 28, 2009 | Reply

    Solar power, as in photovoltaic, is expensive compared to conventional fossil fuel power– our grid-tie backup system will pay for itself in 73 years at the current price of coal-generated electricity. In contrast, solar water heating is far cheaper. We’re installing a system now that should pay for itself in 1-1/2 years compared with what we pay for propane. Don’t rule solar out just because the “sexy” PV technologies are expensive. Household-level hot water, and passive heating and cooling, are both very cost-effective, and (if implemented widely) would drastically offset fossil-fuel-sourced electricity.

    Also, here in the U.S., EIA is promoting “damless” hydropower that is both more cost effective and less environmentally destructive than conventional dam-based hydro. Not only does this make hydro more attractive, it also increases the number of potential sites available.

    Conservation should also be considered. Reports indicate that half the energy generated never leaves the generating plants, while 40-50% of what actually gets to consumers is wasted through inefficient or unnecessary use. If we could eliminate that waste, we’d only need 25-30% of the energy we burn today!

Post a Comment