Which form of renewable energy is the most likely to replace fossil fuels?

How much longer until oil and coal are no longer our primary sources of energy? For how concerned the general public is about global warming and our limited amount of oil and coal, I am surprised that there is not a bigger push toward cleaner, renewable energy. This is especially surprising considering the various forces of nature that we can harness and turn into clean energy. Some of the sources that are at the forefront of renewable energy include wind energy, geothermal energy, solar energy, hydroelectricity, and biofuels. Great strides have been made toward achieving the full potential of renewable energy over the past decade, but we are still very far away from depending solely on just one source.

There is no debating that oil and coal need to be replaced as our main source of energy, but rather how soon does it need to be replaced and what form of renewable energy is the front runner for succeeding oil. Not only do we want our new form of energy to be environmentally friendly, but also economically feasible, providing a large job market that would hopefully be big enough to replace that of big oil companies. Another huge plus of replacing fossil fuels would be opening up the opportunity to shed our dependence on foreign oil.

Obviously some forms of renewable energy are more prominent than others, and they all have their own advantages and disadvantages. For instance, wind and solar energy require a lot of land for their farms, and both are relatively expensive. These two types of energy are probably the most prominent among all other types of renewable energy, however, they are mostly used in rural areas. Wind and solar energy have been gaining popularity with farmers, as described in the article The Determinants of On-Farm Renewable Options one of the writers (there are three and I do not know who wrote what) points out "In 2007, 10,408 farms reported producing energy from wind turbines, solar panels, or methane digesters...". The author(s) also describe that the farmers who do use these types of energy use a lot more land on average than traditional farmers. The unfortunate aspect of these types of renewable energy is that they generally just produce energy for that particular area, and therefore couldn't be used where it may be less sunny or windy. This same concept applies to geothermal energy and hydroelectric energy as well. These energies tend to support areas with larger populations than that of wind energy and solar energy, but they are not as common and are still more difficult and expensive to transport than fossil fuels. What scientists are striving for is to find the most efficient way to produce and store this energy so it can be transported efficiently anywhere.

Of the five key players in renewable energy (geothermal, biofuels, wind, solar, and hydroelectric), geothermal is the least expensive to produce and arguably the most efficient. The Renewable Energy division of the US Energy Department estimated the cost of energy produced at a geothermal steam plant to be about four to six cents per kWh, which is rather cheap for that particular unit of energy production. However, the areas where this energy is produced are limited to places with geothermal activity. I do not think we necessarily have to limit ourselves to only one type of energy source, but instead utilize all of them, hopefully to their full potential, in an effort to replace our dependence on fossil fuels completely.

Works Cited

Melissa A. Schilling, Melissa Esmundo, Energy Policy, 2009 Elsevier Ltd.

Jayson Beckman, Allison Borches, Peter Stenberg, The Determinants of On-Farm Renewable Energy Adoption, July 2011