Future of the Energy

The future of energy use will be governed by what sources of energy are available.  Write 300-400 words comparing a current energy source with a source that is not yet fully "online".  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these sources?


Society cannot imagine future progress without using alternative energy resources. Sources can vary from geothermal to surf energy power plants. Let us analyze biofuel and nuclear energy, which are the most popular kinds today. Nuclear energy is well-known since its requisition in the mid. of the XX century. Nowadays came into usage another kind of energy called biofuel

Nuclear power is the youngest kind of non-renewable energy. Energetic split nuclei of chemical elements and release this process makes enough energy for usage. We can distinct natural nuclear fuel the isotope uranium-235, and recycle nuclear fuel, artificially obtained from nuclear reactor: isotope plutonium-239 and uranium-233 isotope (Farret, 2006).

The advantages of this type of energy are mobile materials and the ability to provide large objects with the necessary energy. The approximate inexhaustibility of such fuel also can be pointed out. Reserves of uranium ore will be enough for 25-30 years (Farret, 2006).

Expensive mining of uranium ore, the inability of nuclear waste to dispose of the waste, the danger of power plant explosion, or damage of the reactors are the main disadvantages of nuclear energy. Public health and safety must be the main factors for limiting atomic power plants usage.

Biofuels are organic materials such as wood, waste, and alcohol, which are used for energy production. Unlike other natural resources such as oil, coal, or nuclear fuel this is a renewable source of energy. Official, biofuels are considered to be any fuel that contains more than 80% derived from organisms materials, collected within ten years before production (Black, 2010).

The main advantage is that biofuels are completely biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment. Among technical preferences, engines infest faster and fuel diverges very sparingly.

Amid the disadvantages is the relative cost of a new kind of energy. Also, this type of fuel cannot provide enough energy to large objects, because it requires a lot of organic materials. The problem of deforestation may appear as well.

2. How does the issue of entropy increase matter for the sources you discuss in question 1?  Does either one have an entropy or efficiency advantage?

For each type of energy, there is the concept of entropy or wasting of heat. Whereby there is a lower wasting of fuel it's cost and value are higher. All the energy from fuel combustion on Earth (about 14 billion tons per year at the beginning of the twenty-first century) is finally heating the land, sea, air and disperses of heat into space (Black, 2010).

The comparable type of energy has the more efficient advantage. If not consider the danger of nuclear reactor damage these types of energy are almost or fully environmental. Also, both fuels concentrate lots of energy and do not need many human resources for the extraction of combustibles. Among alternative kinds of energy, such as wind, sun, and flow these types of energy are stable and will not change due to the weather.

We cannot say that some kind of fuel will be 100% efficient profitable, economic, and universal for any type of use. Entropy will not play a role, if factories, plants, and organizations use few ways of taking energy. Thus, one object can work without any random failure. It will be very reasonable for state buildings, hospitals, schools, and food factories.

3. When considering energy sources there is a question about whether a particular source is a "good" one for transportation as opposed to sources that work well for homes and business locations.  Considering the choices that you made for the first question, write 300-400 words about whether the particular energy sources are better for transportation or larger-scale operations.  Are there ways to adapt transportation systems so that the larger-scale sources become more usable?

All energy sources have a downside.  Of the various sources that are discussed in the video segments, which one is the worst and which one is the best?  Why do you make these choices?

If we consider the biological and nuclear fuel in terms of availability the nuclear is more mobile. Uranium ore is easily transportable and does not take up a large area. However, ores of heavy metals are dangerous to health, and, therefore, the problem of transportation will manufacture hermetically sealed containers that are not exposed to radiation.

Nuclear fuel is more convenient for supplying energy to major cities, factories, companies, organizations, large buildings because procuring so many resources for biofuel is impossible. Transportation of biological debris over long distances is not reasonable as it is almost everywhere. To adapt to the public consumption of bioenergy, various kinds of engines running on ecological fuel must be created and produced. At the moment it is too expensive, except for an engine there must exist special filling stations.

But some prospects of the development of such energy sources can be implied even now. Several types of engines for cars were created and patented (Black, 2010). They may become prototypes of large factory engines. Choice of biofuel is useful because new environmental types of engines can make a breakthrough in the nearest future.

Choice of nuclear energy is useful because among the existing forms of energy, nuclear ranks as a "beginner", which quickly gained a leading position in the energy market.

scroll to top call us
Chat with Support