Mitigate the climate change effects through using renewable energy resources?

How would be possible to mitigate the climate change effects through using renewable energy resources focusing on bio electricity, geothermal energy and hydropower?

Let's be logical about this.

First one has to make the assumption that the climate is changing. next we have to assume that the extra CO2 we are generating is the cause of climate change, also known as anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). If one works from these assumptions, then you "mitigate climate change effects" by generating less CO2. The most obvious way to do this is to generate electricity using an energy source which does not produce CO2. in other words, replace a power plant run by coal, oil, or natural gas with one run by any of the energy sources you mention.

That's the simple answer to your question.

Hydroelectricity has a demonstrated ability to take market share away from fossil fuels which is what you need to do if you want to solve global warming. The only problem is that there aren't enough hydro sites for what you'd need. it would of course involve flooding a lot of land and so have big environmental effects along with getting a lot of protesters against it (many of the same people who say we need more renewable energy too) but from a technical point of view it'll work quite well.

Using biomass has the very big problem that we just can't grow enough to power our civilisation, attempts to use it as fuel so far have only caused food supply problems (remember that fossil fuels are biomass that was created over millions of years). Still, burning the waste methane from landfill will help (as CO? isn't as bad as methane and you also get a bit of electricity out of it) but that won't be much help.

Geothermal is a niche power source that only works in a few places, Iceland gets good use out of it but even there hydro is bigger, it can provide a little bit of help but nowhere near enough (hot rock geothermal is also likely to cause earthquakes along with being unproven at taking market share from fossil fuels).

Solar and Wind have big problems with reliability and require some other power source to back them up, hydro works well for that but the limits of hydro capacity mean that if you want to use those on a large scale you'll need something else and right now that means natural gas which means that they aren't actually helping very much (and may actually be hurting because the faster responding natural gas plants that you'd use aren't as efficient as what you'd use if you didn't need to be able to respond nearly instantly to the wind dying down).

In short, you can't actually do it if you stick with renewable resources, you must accept nuclear power if you actually want to solve the problem.

There is no such thing as renewable energy.
renewable:
1 : capable of being renewed <renewable contracts>
2 : capable of being replaced by natural ecological cycles or sound management practices

How does using solar power create more sunshine? how does using wind create new wind?
The closest thing is wood.

What climate change effects? your question's format doesn't specify what climate change effects you're trying to mitigate.
"how would be possible to mitigate the climate change effects through using renewable energy resources… " sounds as if you're asserting there are climate change effects resulting from using renewable energy resources.
Climate changes, always has, always will.
If you're talking about man-made global warming that's different. You first have to prove there's changes that need to be mitigated. So-called 'renewable energy resources' may reduce the release of green house gasses. However, in some cases the manufacturing, servicing, and distribution of these things produces almost as much green house gas as they're intended to prevent.
The term 'climate change' was adopted by the global warming crowd so that no matter what happens, hot, cold, rain, drought, it's your fault.

Like it or not, that is what is already underway due to government legislation and programs at various levels. The idea is to invest in energy that does not contribute to the carbon load of the planet. Don't forget that the most important tool is in fact conservation, both at the system wide level like improving transmission lines for electricity, and at the consumer level by getting a fuel efficient car or even an electric one and buying renewable sourced electricity for example.

Anthropogenic Global Warming theory (AGW) proposed that mankind's release of prehistoric CO2 back into the atmosphere was causing planetary warming. Socialist world wide geared up to collect massive new taxes on all sorts of fossil fuel use.

Then around 1999 the Globe stopped warming even though CO2 levels continued to rise.
Rather than admit to the theoretical difficulties, Socialists & Scientists changed the theory of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' to 'Anthropogenic Climate Change'.though it is somewhat unclear exactly WHAT aspect of the Climate is changing.

Regardless AGW (or ACC) theory blames old world CO2 – hence ANY energy source that DOES NOT use fossil fuels is considered a 'mitigating' factor.

The term 'renewable' is applied to any power source being 'renewed' via Solar Energy.

So while fossil fuels WERE biologically created using solar energy – we are NOT using Solar energy to replace them, hence they are NOT being renewed, hence CO2 is going into the atmosphere and NOT being extracted.

Using Corn to create alcohol would be a good example of the 'renewable' concept since the corn plant extracts the CO2 from the atmosphere which is latter released when the Alcohol is burned as fuel. However much of the energy uses to process the corn comes from fossil fuel, so this method still releases a great deal of CO2. also as corn shortages consequently force world populations to grow alternative grain products using fossil fuels – so to be honest the use of corn based fuel alcohol probable INCREASES the rate of non-renewed CO2 emissions.

'Solar-electric is considered 'renewable' since the sunshine is converted directly to electricity.
Of course a great deal of fossil fuel energy is used to make Solar-electric cells so the mitigation begins only after the cell has produced more energy than it took to make.

Burning wood is renewable so long as trees are growing fast enough to 'renew' the wood being burned.

Hydroelectric becomes 'renewable' as soon as the power extracted by Sunshine 'lifting' water exceeds the fossil fuel cost of construction.

Geothermal & Nuclear however are NOT renewable. The Sun is NOT restoring the heat being extracted from the earth OR recreating the energy derived from splitting large atoms.
Of course if our sun were a bit larger it would produce 'nuclear' materials when it went nova, but this time frame begs the notion of renewable.

Still if you expand the time frame, even fossil fuels are to some degree renewable. Trees collect the CO2 that cars throw into the air. The wood & paper we make from these trees usually winds up in a landfill that we bury, and in a hundred million years or so those landfills will be pockets of oil.

Bob is absolutely correct.

Man is NOT responsible for Climate Change,….PERIOD!

This whole thing is a scam of biblical proportions designed to further erode your freedom and to further enslave you to the Banking Cartels and Fascist Political Organisations who seek to destroy the National Sovereignty of evry Nation and who's sole aim is a World Wide Dictatorship.

I am sorry to dramatise it in this way, but I really feel I need to.
Because it is in point of fact,…the truth.
There is an element, who have unlimited resources, and who have "agents" in Government and in "opposition" to Government who are seeking what they often smugly refer to as a "new World Order".
Now,..please do not make the mistake of thinking this so called new World Order is a benign friendly idea of all humanity living peacefully with each other,…it is NOT!
What these manipulators seek is nothing less than a World Dictatorship, modelled on the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

This is the truth.

i don't understand why people and scientists wasted more time and monies on less feasible sources of energy. why the hell not applying Tesla's cheaper Free Energy so that the entire planet would benefit all big and small.

this is why those so-called renewable energy is only focus for making more profit and not really serving the people. climate change was merely used as justification to do anything in the name of saving the planet earth.

Its pretty much real proven science that not only is it happening, but that we are greatly to blame for it. Not only would climate change from greenhouse gases be reduced, but it seems like it might be kinda hard to have a wind turbine spill that would muck up our coastlines. I wonder how much these "green" sources of electricity would be able to replace fossil fuels if we switched subsidies, give the bulk of the money to green and throw some token change to the oil companies and the terrorist middle east countries we bow down to now

Renewable energy sources have the advantage that the fuel is free and their use improves our national energy security without having to rely on imported fuel from potentially unstable regimes. Those reasons alone are good enough reason to use renewable energy sources.

If you believe climate change is going on, regardless of whether or not human activity is contributing to it, then you might well wish to explore ways in which human activity can mitigate it. The fact that a forest fire is started by a natural bolt of lightning does not mean human intervention can't help to reduce the impact of the fire. there is no reason the same shouldn't be true of global warming.

The extraction of fossil fuel (coil, oil and natural gas) is expensive and capital intensive. The creation of all that capital equipment to extract fossil fuel, refine it and move it around uses a lot of energy, the consumption of which causes pollution. Then, we we use the fuel, it creates more pollution. a large part of that pollution is carbon dioxide. Quite apart from any pollution, we will eventually run out of fossil fuel so its use is not sustainable in the long term.

Some people will say that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant because plants need it to grow but the fact is that plants had plenty of it before we started burning fossil fuel. The scientists tell us that the excess carbon dioxide we are producing is trapping heat in the earth's atmosphere which is slowly contributing to climate change. If that is true (I am not competent to say it is true and am certainly not competent to say it is NOT true), then using renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, so reducing the resulting 'greenhouse effect' that is said to be a major element of global warming.

I am not sure bio-electricity is (is this about energy from bio-digesters?) but geothermal energy (exploiting the heat stored deep in the earth) and hydro-electricity (using the flow of water to drive turbines to make electricity) do not produce carbon dioxide and do not involve any material depletion of their energy source so they are considered sustainable.

Some people will argue that global warming is not happening (though the weight of scientific evidence says it is) but there are good reasons for using more renewable energy anyway for reasons of economics, national security, reducing pollution and sustainability.

You can't. because man's use of energy is not causing climate change. The climate was changing long before man was even here and will do the same when we are gone.