Our civilization needs electricity. The situation in Fukushima has brought the debate about energy to forefront. Where will electricity come from in the future?
We have a technological civilization that cannot maintain itself without large scale generation of electricity. Where should that electricity come from? I want to go through the alternatives. I am not an expert on these and hope that knowledgable Kossacks can improve this survey, and debate the pros and cons.
I will be making several assumptions. I restricting the alternatives to technology that already exists or is expected to exist in the near future. This leaves out fusion power, since that is a long shot that will not be available for decades, if ever. I am leaving out hydroelectric, since most good hydroelectric possibilities are already developed, making it impossible for hydroelectric to shoulder more of the burden. I am leaving out oil since that is needed for transportation fuel.
I am also not considering conservation here. I consider conservation absolutely essential. But if we cut down per capita electricity use by 50 percent, we still need a lot of electricity. The developing world will want to have the same power available that we have.
All methods have advantages and disadvantages. There is no reason that we have to use just one method, we can combine methods.
In the list below, Suitable for base load indicates whether a plant using the method can consistently run near design capacity under any normal condition.
The estimates of how long non-renewables will last depends greatly on the price, since the higher the price, the more cost-effective it is to mine more marginal reserves. Of course, mining marginal deposits usually has a higher environmental cost. In fact most of these parameters go up or down depending on costs and price.
So here are the alternatives, as I see them:
1. Coal
Pollution: high
Environmental costs of mining: high
Land area required for large scale: low (unless you count land ruined by mining)
Cost: low (unless the coal plants pay for costs of pollution)
Suitable for base load: high
Renewable: no (about 150 years)
CO2: yes, the worst
radiation: surprising yes (coal burning releases radioactive trace elements)
2. Natural gas
Pollution: low
Environmental costs of mining: medium (fracking)
Land area required for large scale: low
Cost: medium (for now)
Suitable for base load: high
Renewable: no (about 100 years, more if large scale liquid natural gas transportation is available)
CO2: yes
radiation: no
3. Nuclear fission
Pollution: very low
Environmental costs of mining: medium
Land area required for large scale: low
Cost: high (how high will depend on regulations and future technology)
Suitable for base load: high
Renewable: no (about 100-200 years, much longer for some reprocessing technologies)
CO2: no
radiation: yes, (could range from almost no radiation released to Chernobyl)
4. Wind
Pollution: low
Environmental costs of mining: low (need to build equipment)
Land area required for large scale: high
Cost: high (still requires subsidies for initial capital)
Suitable for base load: low
Renewable: yes
CO2: no
radiation: no
5. Solar
Pollution: low
Environmental costs of mining: low (manufacturing of solar cells)
Land area required for large scale: high
Cost: high (might come down if efficiency improves dramatically)
Suitable for base load: low
Renewable: yes
CO2: no
radiation: no
6. Geothermal
Pollution: low
Environmental costs of mining: low
Land area required for large scale: high
Cost: high
Suitable for base load: high
Renewable: yes
CO2: no
radiation: no
7. Tidal and wave
Pollution: low
Environmental costs of mining: low
Land area required for large scale: high
Cost: high
Suitable for base load: medium
Renewable: yes
CO2: no
radiation: no