Strategies for Increasing Energy Supply and Fossil Fuels

Increasing supply through an energy mix

Increasing energy supply means making more energy available for homes, transport, farming and industry. Governments can develop renewable sources, extract more fossil fuels or build nuclear power stations. These strategies have different costs, environmental effects and levels of reliability.

A country's energy mix is the combination of sources it uses. Using several sources can help maintain supply when one is unavailable: for example, wind power varies with the weather, whereas a gas-fired power station can generate electricity when required. Increasing supply is therefore not simply about producing the largest possible amount; affordability, reliability and environmental damage also matter.

Renewable sources: energy that is replenished

Renewable sources are replenished naturally on a human timescale. Wind and sunlight do not need to be mined from a finite deposit. Biomass is different: replacement plants must grow to replenish the material used, so its renewability depends on how it is managed.

The seven renewable sources offer different opportunities:

These differences help explain why no single renewable source suits every place. A large river and suitable relief favour HEP, while strong winds favour wind generation. Geothermal electricity is particularly suited to places where underground heat is readily accessible, such as tectonically active areas.

Most renewable technologies do not burn fuel during electricity generation, so their operating greenhouse gas emissions are low. However, manufacturing, transporting and constructing equipment still have environmental impacts. Biomass also releases carbon dioxide when burned. Renewable does not mean impact-free.

Fossil fuels: established but finite supplies

Coal, oil and natural gas formed from organic remains over millions of years. Their formation is far too slow to replace the quantities people use, so they are non-renewable. Increasing extraction can raise supply now, but it does not create an unlimited resource.

Fossil fuels have established extraction, transport and energy-production systems. Unlike wind and solar power, fuel can be supplied to a power station when generation is needed. This makes fossil fuels useful for maintaining reliable supplies, although fuel prices can fluctuate.

There are important differences between them:

• Coal has large world reserves, and mechanisation can make extraction relatively cheap. However, mines can destroy habitats, mining accidents endanger workers, and coal is bulky to transport. Burning it releases carbon dioxide and air pollutants, including sulphur dioxide.
• Oil is relatively easy to move through pipelines or in tankers and is an important transport fuel. Extraction and transport carry risks of spills, fires and explosions. Burning oil releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants.
• Natural gas can be transported through pipelines or in tankers. Burning it generally produces less carbon dioxide than burning coal or oil for an equivalent energy output, but it still contributes to climate change. Leaks of methane, the main component of natural gas, add another greenhouse gas risk.

Developing fossil fuels can therefore improve short-term supply while creating environmental costs during both extraction and use.

Nuclear power: non-renewable but not a fossil fuel

Nuclear power uses nuclear fission, the splitting of atomic nuclei, to release heat. In a power station, this heat produces steam that drives turbines to generate electricity. Uranium is a finite fuel, which makes nuclear power non-renewable.

Nuclear stations can generate electricity on a large scale using relatively small amounts of fuel. Their electricity production has low carbon dioxide emissions compared with fossil-fuel generation, so they offer a way to increase supply without burning coal, oil or gas.

The main trade-offs are cost and waste. Stations are expensive to build and decommission, while radioactive waste requires secure, long-term management. Accidents can also have serious consequences for people and environments. Nuclear power therefore combines large-scale supply with substantial financial and safety responsibilities.

Extraction example: shale gas fracking in the USA

Shale gas extraction in the USA shows how increasing fossil-fuel supply can bring both advantages and disadvantages. Fracking has taken place in more than 30 US states, making it a widespread extraction strategy rather than a single small project.

Shale is a sedimentary rock containing natural gas in small spaces. During hydraulic fracturing, usually called fracking, water, sand and chemicals are injected under pressure into the rock. Fractures allow gas to flow out so that it can be collected. This technology makes gas available that would otherwise be difficult to extract.

The main advantages are economic and linked to supply. Extracting gas within the USA increases domestic energy availability and reduces reliance on imports. It also creates jobs in extraction and associated activities, supporting the economy. If natural gas replaces coal or oil, its lower carbon dioxide emissions during combustion can reduce that part of the environmental cost of energy use.

The disadvantages occur at several stages. Fracking uses large quantities of water, which adds pressure to water supplies. Chemicals create a risk of groundwater contamination, potentially affecting water used by people and ecosystems. Fracking can also cause minor earthquakes. Methane released during extraction contributes to the enhanced greenhouse effect, while the gas still releases carbon dioxide when it is eventually burned.

These are risks and impacts to assess, rather than a claim that every well causes every problem. Their significance depends on local conditions and how extraction is managed.

Weighing the benefits against the costs

US shale gas illustrates a central tension: increasing domestic supply can improve energy security and create employment, but this does not automatically make the strategy environmentally sustainable.

A strong judgement distinguishes timescales and affected groups. Workers and energy users may benefit from more domestic gas, while nearby communities face water-related and earthquake risks. Climate effects extend beyond the extraction area and continue when the fuel is used.

Overall, fracking can strengthen short-term energy supply, especially where it reduces reliance on imported fuel. However, its water demands, pollution risks and greenhouse gas emissions limit its value as a long-term sustainable solution. Similarly, a wider energy mix must be judged by more than output alone: the most useful combination depends on available resources, costs, reliability and environmental consequences.

Increasing supply

Develop a broader energy mix using renewables, fossil fuels and nuclear power. Compare output, reliability, cost and environmental impacts.

Renewable sources

• Biomass: organic fuel; uses waste, but burning causes emissions and plantations can compete with forests or food crops.
• Wind: turbines; low running costs, but variable output and landscape or wildlife impacts.
• Hydro: water turns turbines; controllable generation from reservoirs, but dams flood land and disrupt rivers.