The best alternative source being...??

screw PETA

if they don't like it, then they can volunteer to take the cows place.

Hi everyone. I just got here. But I'm really, really surprised that no one has mentioned geothermal power yet. I realize that it currently only provides 0.416% of the worlds power, but it has the potential to provide for a vast majority of our energy needs. The United States began expanding it's geothermal power technologies, but major progress has slowed considerably in the last six years. Wonder why.
Also, as far as windmills go, they really aren't practical for large amounts of our energy supply, but will probably be a necessary supplemental source of energy. Wind power supplies Denmark with about 20% of their power. Someone mentioned earlier that the vast amount of space they take up is one of their downfalls, but that's actually only partially true. While windmills do take up lots of space, current windmill laws require much more land than is actually necessary. For example, in the United States, you must have at least one acre for each windmill. I find this absolutely ridiculous, personally, because, due to modern technology, there are windmills that can literally be built on rooftops. I could fit three or four small windmills on the roof of my house, which, combined with solar panels, could provide all the energy my home needs. However, I can't legally do that unless I own an acre, which I don't by a long shot. And even then, I could only have one windmill.

I believe hydrogen fuel cells release water vapor which is 200 times more potent than carbon as one of those dreaded greenhouse gases put out by those evil humans!

Solar technology is in the stone age as apposed to what it should be at right now if it were developed more.

Wind turbine could never work due to distance issues from an open field to a major city and then there's constant maintenance.

IMHO We should of went more nuclear a long time ago. But I secretly believe trans warp engines powered by diterium is the REAL way to go

I think nuclear power poses numerous risks within both the environment and the health of the people in it. As part of my recent science exam we looked into the case of Sellafield, a nuclear power plant in the UK. The article showed that although it supplied power to hundreds of people's homes, the waste it created would have to be contained, the intensity of the protection it offered to the atmosphere depending on the level of the waste. The waste, all three levels combined, amounts to a very large half life, meaning it would take hundreds of years for it to even begin to decay properly.
Cases such as Chernobyl have also outlined the health risks of nuclear power. In the case of a nuclear spill the long term effects are extremely vast, and can even reach countries a great distance away. (A science teacher at my school did an experiemtn a number of years ago, several yearsafter the spill and found that a radiation cloud (or something like that) was passing over Bristol, extremely far away from Chernobyl) Scientists are also worried about the supposed cancer risks that nuclear spills create, apparantly even now some villages in Chernobyl are deserted as it is still too radioactive for people to live there.

I think that once the fossil fuels have depleted we should use renewable resources such as wind, excluding HEP.

you cannot fairly judge nuclear power on your two examples. (sellafield and chernobyl)

sellafied is a really old plant. the first commercial nuclear plant in the world i believe. so of course there was going to be problems with it.
but fact is, we have learned many things from this example e.g how not to manage a decomissoned nuclear plant lol.

chernobyl as i said and jonny said (albeit a lot better) was a f*** up to begin with.
with a badly designed reactor and badly trained operators it was a accident waiting to happen.

plants today are managed WAY better than chernobyl was.

disposing of nuclear fuel is not as difficult as it sounds.
it can be reprocessed using breeder reactors or using PUREX or "plutonium and uranium recovery by extraction".

Another disaster on the level of Chernobyl is extraordinarily unlikely.

Comparing the storage of small amounts of radioactive waste to the billions of tons of toxic waste released right into the atmosphere and groundwater by coal-burning power plants can only lead to one possible conclusion.

Is this what you were talking about?
https://www.livescience.com/technology/070725_tame_tornadoes.html