anonymous
  • anonymous
Which of the following best describes the long-term impact of using a nonrenewable energy source? Burning biomass to produce energy releases greenhouse gases. Petroleum absorbs carbon dioxide and pollutes water supplies. Nuclear power produces radiation that would be harmful if leaked. Geothermal energy can disrupt the water table and harm water supplies.
Biology
  • Stacey Warren - Expert brainly.com
Hey! We 've verified this expert answer for you, click below to unlock the details :)
SOLVED
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
chestercat
  • chestercat
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
anonymous
  • anonymous
What do you believe that answer is?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Either C or D
anonymous
  • anonymous
Why do you say that?

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
Lets start here.
anonymous
  • anonymous
So using a nonrenewable resource has bad effects so look for the choices that are bad.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Then tell me what you see
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well using nuclear power to generate energy can be harmful if the radiation were to leak, causing long term effects to the environment and the living creatures inhabiting it. Geothermal energy can disrupt the surrounding water supply and if it were say a small lake or river then the ecosystem would be effected as well.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Ok now think which one of these horrible outcomes would last the longest
anonymous
  • anonymous
Choose the best 2 that fit the description
anonymous
  • anonymous
i gotta go with c because Nuclear radiation does take time to repair the damage.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Nice I believe you are correct but I will still do further research just to make sure
anonymous
  • anonymous
Also a medal and fan and a close of this question will be greatly appreciated :)
anonymous
  • anonymous
I will contact you personally if I decide against your answer :)
anonymous
  • anonymous
Well if i were to look at this question based on the effect radius then then the wider the effect the better the answer weather it spreads of consumes there area.
anonymous
  • anonymous
The question is not based on the radius of the problem which is the cause of using nonrenewable resources and harmful effect but it is based on the long-lasting term of the situation.
anonymous
  • anonymous
So you would have to go with the one that last the longest not the one with the biggest and most harmful effect.
anonymous
  • anonymous
the way i see it the wider the effect radius the long it would take for the situation to resolve but a nuclear leak or melt down would be devastating...to just that area. if it were a case of water pollution and it wasn't a contained body of water then it would leak out into the ocean cause a long term effect and create a wide spread clean up.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Usually when there are questions like these the question is really asking what would take the longest to clean up but is asking on how long the actual harm would go on for

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.