Alternative vs. Renewable

Posted by Kimgerly on June 4, 2008 at 2:21am in Uncategorized

Greetings.

This is my first post. Last year, I attended Energy Ocean 2007 Conference in Oahu, HI and the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) conference in Portland, OR. Everyone who is anyone on the international circuit was at these conferences. I asked the following of all the attendees of this conference, and received a favorable response from everyone who approached me after I asserted my agency on this matter.

I know this is going this suggestion is going to present a branding sting, but I would like to challenge you and the establishment to stop using the operative 'alternative' in your articles/posts and start using 'renewable' when referring to energy resources. In using 'alternative' therein lies an implication that the masses have a choice. Granted, I understand that renewable energy resources are 'alternatives' to our current hydrocarbon lifestyle.

I think all scientists, engineers, politicians and journalists need to start sending a clearer, cogent, concise message to the masses that renewable energy is the ONLY solution--the sooner this idea is embedded, the sooner it will resonate with those who are solicitous about making the transition, garnering more support from populous so the transition can ensue. I mean, it's invariable, at some date in the future, where the operative renewable energy will be commonplace and the norm--so why not make the transition now? Hit me...

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by AlternativeEnergy.com on June 4, 2008 at 8:12am: Both terms are fine. There are alternatives. The choices may be limited at this moment, but there really are choices. Over time, there will be many more choices. Thanks for participating!; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kimgerly on June 4, 2008 at 10:58am: I think you missed my point. There needs to be a SINGULAR offering, renewable energy, not choices to this. And yes, within RE there are a veritable plethora of resources--that's not the point of the distinction I'm trying to make. Indeed, at this time, renewable energy is an alternative to the hydrocarbon, consumerism lifestyle we in the west are accustomed, and because of this, most of the masses still perceive renewable energy as an 'ALTERNATIVE' operative, not the primary.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Pam McAlilly on June 6, 2008 at 8:56pm: Good point. Language is the key. Words constitute our language...especially in the multi-texting world where we all reside.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jay on June 7, 2008 at 2:52pm: I think you right the sooner the better. Me and my ma were just talking the other day about how far we could of gone towards energy independence if they had just bought SOLAR ARRAYS with the monet HILLARY and BARAC and the
Republican McCain spent in this election year trying to convince us there going to do something. The largest photovoltaic plant in the US. is 8.22 megawatt facility built recently by SunEdison it creates enough power to supply a meger 1,500
homes. We can do better than that thats pathetic! The big wind farms going in now produce energy on a grand scale
each turbine can supply enough electricity for 350 homes SO WHY is it SOLAR is so far behind? The answer is that until solar production capacity is stepped up and costs slashed to be competive with fossil fuel it's always going to be where it's at. 85% of the public recently polled favor solar as the solution. The Chineese are starting 50 new solar companies
are we loosing the race to solar technology. Lewt's hope they can build the arrays cheap enough we all can afford to go solar and not so cheap that we clog our landfill with cheap chineese solar products. There is a way around this it is to design cheap plastic organic solar cells that are recycable. When then done cranking out the electricity you take them back in for recycling into newer panels kind of like the bottle deposit. Always getting better and more effecient and designed to be exchanged every ten years or so.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Namkalb on July 28, 2008 at 1:09pm: I am new to this site but I disagree with Kimgerly of the term " Renewable" being the only term as opposed to "Alternative". If we would begin to concentrate on the engine as opposed to the fuel, then an "alternative" to the combustion engine and its fuel, would not need anything to be "renewed " because the "alternative" -altering that which is natural or from nature- would or could be something that no one has yet produced. An example is my product/idea called The Namkalb System Engine (N.S.E.) "patent-pending" .It uses (3) all-natural, non-fossil-fueled, infinite sources of energy in combination.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Kimgerly on July 28, 2008 at 1:22pm: Namkalb, I think you miss the big picture point here. I'm not singularly referring to the engine when I defer to using the operative renewable. It needs to be applied across ALL technology disciplines in the burgeoning RE industry.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Namkalb on July 30, 2008 at 12:39pm: Hi Kimgerly, Whether we use renewable or alternative, we must come to realize that all of the sources of energy that we do or plan to use comes from sources on, above or below the earth. We must utilize the non -polluting, infinite , natural sources of energy in combination to end our dependence on fossil-fueled energy sources and systems that emit as much into the atmosphere in production as it does in our consumption. My product/idea: The Namkalb System Engine (N.S.E.) needs an investor for the prototype for future clean energy naturally.; ▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim C. on August 3, 2008 at 1:32pm: Kimgerly,
Your point is well taken. The sun is the "only" source of energy that this planet has, that I am aware of. That said, then oil,coal and all other fuel sources should be considered an alternative energy and they are not renewable. If the sun were to burn out today by this time next week we would all be dead.; ▶ Reply to This