A selection of our reader comments is provided below. While not all of the comments are as on point as others, we believe many of our readers' comments add perspective and flavor to our core question "Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?" and this site.
We posted these pro, con, and not clearly pro or con comments in the approximate ratio that we received them. (For example, if 60% of the responses received are "pro," then about 60% of the responses posted below would be "pro").
The comments are arranged in reverse chronological order within each category. We sometimes edit comments for brevity, clarity, and spelling. We may also remove comments posted when we find better comments covering the same issues or for other good reasons. To preserve confidentiality, only the writer's first name is noted, unless he/she has waived confidentiality. Respondents are generally notified when we add their comments to this section.
PRO Alternative Energy
CON Alternative Energy
"There is a possible very affordable solution to our electricity generation and liquid transportation fuel problems. We could combine liquid fluoride thorium [LFT] reactors with the 'Green Freedom' synthetic liquid fuel process, which uses nuclear power to produce sulfur free gasoline and jet fuel made from water and atmospheric CO2... LFT reactors would not promote nuclear weapons proliferation and could be manufactured like airliners on an assembly line, dramatically lowering costs and enabling electricity production at a rate cheaper than burning coal. It is reported that LFT reactors produce less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of conventional water cooled reactors, and could even be used to recycle our large supply of spent nuclear fuel rods." Christopher, June 21, 2009
"Alternative sources of energy can become a satisfactory substitute for fossil fuels if we put as much effort and genius in the effort as we did in producing the first atomic bomb. The most satisfactory single alternative would be hydrogen fusion but that quasi-miracle may be beyond our capability. We may discover that wind, solar, biomass, etc., all piled on top of each other, may have to do, but their success may turn out to require an effort that started a generation ago. Essential to any and all success is the realization on our part that we may be able to do anything, which includes fail." Alfred W. Crosby, PhD, Professor Emeritus of History, Geography, and American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin, June 19, 2009
"In response to your question, 'Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?', I can categorically answer in the affirmative. Our company, Genesys, LLC, patented and proven (reduced to practice) a new technology that can convert any form of water (e.g. waste, or sea water) to hydrogen effectively and efficiently. We presently have a demonstration prototype producing hydrogen from tap water with high efficiency (> 75%). The only ingredient is heat which is obtainable from geothermal or solar sources. This technology has the ability and potential of replacing ALL fossil fuels. We challenge any other competing energy technology or modality with that comprehensive solution." Ronny, Mar. 2, 2009
"I am delighted for my site Alternate Energy Sources For A Flourishing Future to be included in your excellent Procon site. Thank you...
Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels. Moreover, there is no choice. It must as fossil fuel resources are finite, environmentally prohibitively costly...
Taking into account the cost to our Earth of burning fossil fuels and to future generations of humans- and all life, renewable energy will be effective, and increasingly so as it develops.
However, no technology alone will 'deliver' a sustainable world, one where humans truly employ care, and live well within natural limits...
The fading age of industry must be superseded by a new age of 'Being', about living with ourselves as if the Earth were part of us, as it is... Without such changes in thinking the best alternative energy technology will only create greater problems." Erik Leipoldt, PhD, Director of Alternate Energy Sources.com, Feb. 19, 2009
"[I]f nuclear energy is considered 'alternative' (to fossil fuels) then I am in the Pro camp. If nuclear is not considered alternative I am decidedly in the Con camp because I do not believe it is remotely possible to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, geothermal etc. by themselves. Then there is the question of whether hydroelectricity is 'alternative'. If both hydro and nuclear are not considered alternative then it is doubly impossible to replace fossil fuels with alternatives." Patrick Moore, PhD, Chair and Chief Scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. and former director of Greenpeace International, Feb. 18, 2009
"The question 'Can alternative energy effectively replace fossil fuels?' is not properly worded. After running out of fossil fuels and Uranium, energy from renewable sources must and will fully replace today's energy sources. There are no other choices. The question should be: 'Can we satisfy 50% of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2050?'
The answer is a definitive 'yes we can'. But it requires determination and concerted action. The necessary transition is slowed by asking questions like the one above and by starting a debate over pros and cons of the unavoidable process of change. The transition to renewables is dictated by nature (limited resources, global warming, nuclear waste) and not by environmentalist or green politicians.
Solar energy is abundant. An area of about 100 x 100 miles in Arizona receives much more solar energy than the entire US needs. Renewable energy from amortized installation will be much cheaper than electricity from nuclear power plants or fusion reactors. As most renewable energy is harvested as electricity, our energy system will be heavily based on electricity and very efficient use of energy. Wasteful thermal power plants will run out of fuel, but heat pumps will become real multipliers for renewable electrical energy. The energy needs of people will be satisfied with much less primary energy. There is no reason to be afraid of the future.
But we have to leave the chemical energy base (thermal power plants, IC engines etc.) and switch to a physical energy base (electricity). This is the challenge of our society. We can master the future only if we accept this assignment and go for it." Ulf Bossel, PhD, Freelance sustainable energy consultant, Feb. 18, 2009
"The First Half of the Age of Oil comes to an end, being partly responsible for the current financial and economic crisis facing the world. Oil and gas are set to decline during the Second Half of the Age of Oil to near exhaustion by the end of this Century due to natural depletion. Today, renewable energy, including hydro, accounts for no more than about 12% of the world's energy consumption. It is evident that the demand for it will grow greatly in the years ahead, but it is doubted that it can replace fossil fuels as such. Improved efficiency and changed lifestyles are called for to meet the challenges imposed by Nature. The tensions and challenges of the transition threaten to be serious." Colin J. Campbell, PhD, Founder and Honorary Chairman of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO), Feb. 18, 2009
NOT CLEARLY PRO OR CON Alternative Energy
"Instead of wasting time on drilling for oil or trying to construct wind mills we should be using more natural gas. It is readily available and is very cheap. Not only that but it is clean air sensitive. It is already being used by cities in some of their fleet vehicles." William, May 10, 2009
"By some definitions, nuclear energy is 'alternative.' By others, it is not. Specifying things directly, I will say that wind, solar, solar/thermal, solar/thermal/electric, biomass, hydro --- all forms of solar combined can not replace coal, oil, and natural gas.
Geothermal energy is essentially limitless, but by and large is way too deep in the ground to be practicable.
Nuclear energy is essentially limitless, and could easily replace fuels used for heating and electricity production. It could not easily replace fuels for transportation.
Now, if you boil that down to one word, is it pro or con?" Howard C. Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Connecticut, Feb. 17, 2009
