What's the best renewable energy source?

depends on the environment, usually hydroelectric power

Burning wood

>>8478220
This, geothermal, and nuclear.

>>8478229
Nuclear isn't renewable.

Technically geothermal isn't either, but it's not as if you're apt to really run out...

>>8478264
The sun isn't renewable by that definition either. It'll go supernova eventually.

The best source of energy that's cheap enough to get again is... all of them. I mean what is the argument here.

>>8478201
There are no renewable energy sources.

Eventually the sun will run out of Hydrogen to fuse. Solar/Wind/Hydro all draw energy from the Sun. Even biocharcoal/biofuel is stored solar energy.

Geothermal taps into the Earth's finite heat supply.

File: infinite_energy.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>8478201

>>8478201
The experiment was if cat can bend spoon, not the other way around.

>>8478286
>>8478290
Yeah, but when they say "renewable" they mean sources that eventually rejuvenate themselves, faster than you use them up, provided that the systems that create them remain intact.

While geothermal and solar are technically not renewable, they can't be exhausted by use, as the energy is being created faster than one could ever likely be able use it. Fissile materials, on the other hand, aren't renewable by any stretch.

>>8478201
your moms farts

>>8478201
Solar. Almost else is just indirect use of solar power
>>8478264
Geothermal is non-renewable over human timescales, once all that hot rock is cold rock, it takes a long time to regenerate

>>8478321
The sun is going to balloon up and fry us all well before the Earth cools down, there's no conceivable way to exhaust geothermal energy.

I suppose, maybe, if you wanted to start accelerating giant star ships to relativistic speeds with it, maybe you could find a way, but you'd pretty much have to replace every inch of the Earth's crust with reactors, and it'd be much simpler to setup some giant solar arrays and lasers and Kugelblitz yourself up some black holes instead.

>>8478332
>>there's no conceivable way to exhaust geothermal energy.
Build a bunch of space elevators and have them pick up and throw rocks at greater than escape velocity. At 1 million tons of rock per second, one could destroy the earth in 189,000,000 years, less time than it takes to sun to expand and absorb the earth.

No earth, no geothermal.

Not to mention, the max amount of (thermal)power we can 'sustainably' extract is around 30 TW, which pales in comparison to the 174,000 TW the Earth receives in solar.

Oh and geothermal sucks because it causes earthquakes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity#Geothermal_energy

File: 1473260540518.jpg (17KB, 275x343px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 275x343px

>>8478400
Spit up my coke

biomasses

Thorium. It just werks!

>>8478201
100 shih-tsu puppies on a treadmill chasing after a kitten

Boom infinite green energy

Nothing is truly renewable in the first place, since our solar system is finite.

In terms of a human timescale though, only solar, wind, hydroelectric and geothermal are truly renewable energy resources. Nuclear is a good option to combat climate change, but it is not renewable. Now I'm not 100% positive on this, but I think the amount of Uranium on Earth that we can mine is limited, thus limiting the amount of Nuclear energy that we can utilize. Now, there are other Nuclear options like Thorium which if we put more effort into researching, we might be able to make Nuclear a lot more "renewable" than it is now, but it will still never truly be renewable. If we switched 100% of our energy generation to Nuclear we would run out pretty quickly, and energy usage is increasing every year.