We use lots of energy and how we get this has big implications for the world. It's an interesting topic because it's tricky/impossible for individuals to be self-sufficient with energy and ways of getting energy can have big consequences for people and the planet. It's something we have to co-operate on.
Most of this is about electricity I guess, but it doesn't need to be limited to that.
Some of the topics/questions to consider:
- if it's based on natural resources when will they run out?
- does the process have negative outputs? (e.g. carbon emissions)
- what dangers or health risks are involved in the process?
- is the system robust/redundant in the event of failure?
- how easy is it for poor countries to use the technology?
- does it increase/decrease inequality?
- does it require power transfer across long distances?
- how to transfer power across long distances?
- do people like it?
- is it ready to use now, or only in the future?
We use lots of coal and gas, some nuclear, and some renewables (In what quantities? global and regionally...).
Carbon (and other?) emissions look likely to be causing global warming. The natural resources we use are limited, and often in countries with questionable politics and human rights (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
Western countries are looking to use previously inaccessible natural resources, e.g. Gatwick oil in UK, fracking in USA (and UK).
In the race to become less dependent on foreign oil and gas these three options present solutions. It's quite interesting as they are wildly different ways of generating power but all address the problem of foreign oil/gas. It might be this is the core political/economic motivation to move to them. Not using finite natural resources is also a motivation, but fracking and (most?) nuclear involve finite resources anyway.
New nuclear techologies remove many of the negatives of previous nuclear technology (e.g. molton salt, thorium, and perhaps fusion, or others...).
They remain highly complex and expensive though and these modern developments are not quite proven in the field yet. The public remain sceptical too (perhaps significantly because people are irrational and are more worried about a nuclear meltdown than a car accident - they are much much more likely to die from the car accident, yet sit that yabbering away on their phone, or fiddling with the music whilst travelling at 90mph, sigh).
They also are likely to increase inequality as far as I can see as it would be hard to setup a nuclear power plant somewhere in the middle of Somalia (for example). Wind/hydro/solar does not have this problem.
These are good and have infinite source of energy (hence "renewable"). Wind blowing, water moving, and sun shining are the energy sources to harness. The main problem is that these sources have highly variable output. Consumer energy requirements are driven from other sources (like everybody getting up to put the kettle in during the advertisements in the football game).
Two solutions to the variable output are:
- have conventional power plants aswell
- have a way to storage electricity (putting something high up, or batteries)
This is about getting natural resources from the ground that were previously not economically viable. All other benefits/disbenefits of the method of generating electricity from the resource remain.