Sarah Seatter

The “Best” Form of Energy

To first decide which form of energy is the “best”, a few things must be considered:

reliability, availability, production, emissions, and a few other elements. These components are the

key variables that will dictate which form of energy is the best. Although reliability, availability, and

emissions are important they also all rely on geographical location. For instance, although Boston is

considered to be the “windiest city” in the United States and would be able to harvest a great deal of

wind for energy, wind farms, and wind turbines are not a realistic energy source for Boston (Current

Results). This is because Boston is a large city that does not have space for these large windfarms

and wind turbines. Additionally, another example of the importance of geographical location is solar

panels, Alaska is does not have much sunlight during the winter, therefore installing solar panels in

Anchorage or Juneau would not be ideal. Therefore the “best” form of energy must include the key

components, reliability, availability, emissions and must be feasible for all geographical areas.

The forms of energy that will be discussed in this paper are: fossil fuels, biomass,

hydroelectric energy, nuclear power, wind energy and solar energy. I am immediately going to

remove wind energy and solar energy from the options. This is because with solar energy, a great

deal of sunlight is needed which is not necessarily feasible for every city, state, or country. Similarly

with wind mills, and wind farms it is not feasible to create wind farms in large cities. Not only is it

not realistic to build wind farms in cities, but windfarms are receiving a lot of backlash because

people think they are “ugly” and “loud” (Des Moines Register). This leaves fossil fuels, biomass,

hydroelectric energy, and nuclear energy. Biomass is another form that is immediately going to be

crossed off the list of “best” energy form. This is because biomass uses organic components, such as

wood, plants and animal waste to create energy (Atomberg Technologies). In my opinion climate
change and global warming has caused enough damage to the environment, so I don’t believe that

we should begin using more and more wood and plants to fuel our energy needs.

After the elimination of solar, wind and biomass, that leaves: hydroelectric, natural gas, and

nuclear energy. Hydroelectric energy has been used for centuries, because of its simplicity. It is a

completely renewable source of energy, because it is simply powered by falling water. Although this

form of energy seems to be very natural and you would think that since the energy is merely

harvested from the water that it would not produce any emissions. Unfortunately, that is not the

case, “Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some

cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels” (New

Scientist). In addition to producing methane emissions, the dams used to for the hydroelectric

energy, Causes loss to biodiversity of fish population and other aquatic animals. It also displaces

local people and creates problems of rehabilitation and related socio-economic problems”

(Atomberg Technologies). Although hydroelectric dams, create methane emissions, and disrupt

some ecosystems, “Hydropower offers the lowest levelized cost of electricity across all major fossil

fuel and renewable energy sources, and costs even less than energy efficiency options, according to a

recent study from Navigant Consulting and the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE)”

(National Hydropower Association). This is great, but although the costs of the hydroelectric energy

itself is cheaper in comparison to fossil fuels, the construction and continually maintenance

outweighs that, and causes for the hydroelectric energy to be much more expensive to produce. A

final point to be made about hydroelectric energy is that it in the case of a drought, minimal energy

will be produced, because there are such limited reservoirs. Therefore because of the emissions

produced, disruptions of ecosystems and its cost, hydroelectric energy is not the best form of

energy.
 Fossil fuels from a “cradle to grave” standpoint seems to be most efficient. Although, fossil

fuels are running out and that is well known, they still provide energy for most of the world. I do

not believe that fossil fuel is the best form/source of energy, it is simply what is most convenient to

use. If suddenly fossil fuels were to disappear or become drained out, I sincerely believe that new

innovative ways to harvest renewable energy would be popping up left and right. To me, believing

that fossil fuels is the best form of energy is lazy. “Fossil fuels release carbon dioxide when they

burn, which adds to the greenhouse effect and increases global warming.” (Bitesize). Why continue

to incentivize coal, natural gas and petroleum, when they are not sustainable long term and are the

major contributors to global warming? “Coal, natural gas and petroleum received $4.22 billion most

in direct subsidies – solar got $1.13 billion” (Energy Informative). It really does not make much

sense to me to continue to funnel so much money into fossil fuels, because of the harm that it

causes to society. “Extraction processes can generate air and water pollution, and harm local

communities. Transporting fuels from the mine or well can cause air pollution and lead to serious

accidents and spills. When the fuels are burned, they emit toxins and global warming emissions.

Even the waste products are hazardous to public health and the environment” (Union of Concerned

Scientists). The whole process of extracting the fossil fuels, transporting the fossil fuels and burning

the fossil fuels is extremely harmful to the environment. All in all, I believe that fossil fuels are

harmful to environmental and public health, which should be reason enough to believe that fossil

fuels are not the best form of energy. I understand that the switch from fossil fuels to a reliable and

sustainable energy will not happen overnight, but I believe if given a deadline to create a form of

renewable energy to replace fossil fuels the transition could happen in a timely manner. I think this is

possible because in 1961 JFK gave his “moon speech”, telling Americans we would be in space by

1969. This created a deadline that engineers had to follow, and make sure they completed everything
that needed to be done by a certain date. I believe that with deadlines we can switch from fossil fuels

to renewable energy within the decade.

I believe that nuclear energy is a great option of energy forms. “Proponents of nuclear

energy contend that nuclear power is a sustainable energy source that reduces carbon emissions and

increases energy security by decreasing dependence on foreign oil” (Atomberg Technologies). Not

only does nuclear energy reduce the amount of carbon emissions, but nuclear power plants do not

require much maintenance and have a greater longevity before they need to be refueled. Although I

have already eliminated solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy, if these renewable forms of energy

were used in unison with nuclear energy the combination would be unstoppable. This is because

“Renewable plants are considered intermittent or variable sources and are mostly limited by a lack of

fuel. As a result, these plants need a backup power source such as large-scale storage (not currently

available at grid-scale)—or they can be paired with a reliable baseload power like nuclear energy”

(Office of Nuclear Energy). To put this into prospective “A typical nuclear reactor produces 1

gigawatt (GW) of electricity, you would need almost two coal or three to four renewable plants (each

of 1 GW size) to generate the same amount of electricity onto the grid”(Office of Nuclear Energy).

This proves that nuclear is more effective per capita than fossil fuels. Although, “Nuclear power

plants create a lot of low-level radioactive waste as transmitted parts and supplies. Over time, used

nuclear fuel decays to safe radioactive levels, however this takes a number of years” (Conserve

Energy Future). This means that if we make nuclear energy our prime source of energy, that

although the plant is creating radio-active waste, the waste is simultaneously decaying to safe

radioactive levels.
 All in all, I believe that each energy form has its own pros and cons, but I firmly believe that

fossil fuels is the worst option for an energy form. I strongly believe that a combination of nuclear

energy and renewable energy (solar, wind, hydroelectric) is the “best” energy form(s).
 Works Cited
“Affordable.” National Hydropower Association, www.hydro.org/waterpower/why-hydro/affordable/.

CurrentResults.com, Liz Osborn. “Windiest Cities in the United States.” Windiest City in America - Current

Results, www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/windiest-cities.php.

“Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power - Revision 1 - GCSE Physics (Single Science) - BBC Bitesize.” BBC

News, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpp4jxs/revision/1.

“Fossil Fuels Pros and Cons.” Energy Informative, energyinformative.org/fossil-fuels-pros-and-cons/.

Graham-Rowe, Duncan. “Hydroelectric Power's Dirty Secret Revealed.” New Scientist, 24 Feb. 2005,

www.newscientist.com/article/dn7046-hydroelectric-powers-dirty-secret-revealed/.

Hardy, Kevin, and Donnelle Eller. “6 Common Complaints against Iowa Wind Turbines.” Des Moines

Register, Des Moines Register, 24 Apr. 2017,

www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2017/04/21/6-common-complaints-against-

iowa-wind-turbines/100706178/.

“Nuclear Power Is the Most Reliable Energy Source and It's Not Even Close.” Energy.gov,

www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close.

Team, Atomberg. “Top 10 Renewable Energy Sources.” Most Energy Efficient Ceiling Fan in India, Most

Energy Efficient Ceiling Fan in India, 24 Jan. 2020, atomberg.com/top-10-renewable-energy-

sources/.

“The Hidden Costs of Fossil Fuels.” Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/resources/hidden-

costs-fossil-fuels.