Thread: what will be the major energy source 50 years from now?

other.

Nuclear.

Maybe in the distant, distant future we can simply convert waste products back into energy directly. Until then, there's a few planets no one seems to be doing anything with to store waste products.

Nuclear fusion (Nuclear power is an ambigious term and can refer to Nuclear Fission as well)

teats

Nuclear and/or geothermal

You need to be more specific. Are you talking about energy for fuel or energy for electricity generation?

Personally I think it's perfectly possible we could see civilisational collapse if we don't pull the proverbial finger out before oil starts declining - which it most likely will very soon.

Nuclear fusion is really the only sustainable alternative we have for electricity, and the amount of funding going into that is so pitiful that it probably won't be possible for at least 50 years... politicians are extremely ignorant and stupid when it comes to these matters. They'd rather just wait for a blatant crisis that their tiny minds can comprehend - oil wars or financial meltdown, for example.

For fuel... I just don't know. I'm yet to hear a viable alternative.

and the amount of funding going into that is so pitiful that it probably won't be possible for at least 50 years

I think part of that is simply a lack of public awareness and education. In the UK media (and politics) at least, you hear about solar power and so on these days, but fusion power doesn't get discussed much at all. Well, to be honest, I suppose physics these days is a joke (along with the other sciences), but that's kind of outside the scope of this thread.

It's also probably fair to say that the general public upon hearing the word "fusion" would probably associate it with "cold fusion" and all the nonsense involved with that.

Greenpeace aren't exactly a shining example of knowledge and wisdom either, judging by their ignorant reaction to the building of ITER.

politicians are extremely ignorant and stupid when it comes to these matters.

Recently I find it bizarre that politicians have such a poor background in science. Aside from learning the values of logic and reason, they'd also be in a better position to make informed comments and discussion on alternate energy sources, and less of the ignorant ones like the following:

In the next 50 years nuclear fusion will neither tackle climate change nor guarantee the security of our energy supply.
- Rebecca Harms, MEP

Really does show how closed-minded and ill-informed some people are eh?

even though we dont have cost effective technology at the moment, i personally believe Solar will lead the way.

Probably nuclear fission as baseload, if not fusion gets in the way.

The energy supply will be heavy supported from all kind of different energy sources: Geothermal, wind power, hydropower, solar power. Biomass might be used, but mostly electricity will most likely propel vehicles.

Nuclear for home, bio-fuel for automobiles.

Probably something up on a distant planet, if we can get up there. We may find a new renewable resource, or possibly even something like oil that causes war and depression. Yay space.

the sun. still.

A better question: when do you think that humanity will be (for the most part) independent of petroleum as an energy source?

When energy storage for the various forms of transport catches up with the performance and convenience provided by petroleum. Though even then fossil fuels would still be needed to generate electricity, unless there were massive investments and improvements in solar power.

ok, Follow up question.

do you believe the government should encourage development of a specific alternative energy or should petroleum just roll onward until the free market demands something different?

what concerns you more?
cost and convenience
or environmental impact?

Originally Posted by Matt5678

ok, Follow up question.

do you believe the government should encourage development of a specific alternative energy or should petroleum just roll onward until the free market demands something different?

what concerns you more?
cost and convenience
or environmental impact?

If the government encourages power companies (read: pays bonuses to power companies), they will do almost anything the government says. My opinion? Get the companies working on electric cars. If we can run everything on electricity, we can consolidate power generation, ideally to nuclear. Replace oil drills with radioactive waste containment sites and more reactors, and we might be better off than if we tried to pursue multiple outlets(pun definitely intended).

Also, I'm typically more concerned with cost and convenience than impact on the environment(no one buys it if they can't afford it), but even in the case of nuclear, environment isn't as much of an issue as you would expect. The waste produced by current nuclear plants is much, much less than you get from fossil plants, and more research will help us learn to properly dispose of waste products.

I find the general public extremely frustrating when it comes to issues like power generation.. they don't seem to understand how far developed technologies are, and the life-cycle costs associated with them.

Understanding the difference between baseload and non-baseload power would be a start; the only things that can provide that so far are gas/coal, geothermal and nuclear. Solar is out, unless a method is found to store that energy. Politics usually push investment towards non-baseload technologies that are seen as 'greener', and in doing this hinder the development of baseload technologies that would provide clean power where it matters and will be used most.

I'd like to think nuclear fusion would be the future baseload technology, as it's super-clean, though as others have said, funding for even fission is way off the mark. There are a lot of technological and political issues that need to be overcome, but I'd love to see an operational fusion plant with positive output in my lifetime.

Biomass is an excellent choice - I was just researching methanol production, and the gases from landfills can already be used to produce it, giving a viable electrical/automotive energy source. Research is underway into producing a method of converting biomass directly into methanol. Very clean, useful technology - landfill gas is fairly dangerous if not properly contained.

Coal, oil and gas may be running out where we've conventionally looked for them, though deep-sea deposits may exist and would be great to utilise. I'd prefer that polital pressure doesn't force old technologies out of use, or we'll have a huge energy crisis on our hands.

Geothermal is very promising. Enough said.

within 50 years we will have tapped into the latent potential of the space time continuum and will have no need for any specific energy source. Zero point energy ftw.

Sunlight... It's everywhere. With the rise of new electrical power storage technology (see: the supercapacitor), I can easily see a new generation of electric cars that can store a great deal more energy without the drawback of the weight of our current petrol-based automobiles. The costs of solar tech will drop over time as the use and development of solar cells becomes much more widespread. New companies will open up, manufacturing components will be more common, and competition will drive the pricerange of our future, more efficient solar cells down to an affordable level for the general public.

That's what I'd like to see, anyways.

Originally Posted by Invader

Sunlight... It's everywhere. With the rise of new electrical power storage technology (see: the supercapacitor), I can easily see a new generation of electric cars that can store a great deal more energy without the drawback of the weight of our current petrol-based automobiles. The costs of solar tech will drop over time as the use and development of solar cells becomes much more widespread. New companies will open up, manufacturing components will be more common, and competition will drive the pricerange of our future, more efficient solar cells down to an affordable level for the general public.

That's what I'd like to see, anyways.

I throw my money behind this. Seems the best option at least. Nuclear energy.... no thanks.


I don't want a nuclear reactor in my basement, to Maniac Mansion for me... thanks anyway..

(It creates tons of waste, and is extremely dangerous even if they are way safer today.)

How much and what kind of waste is created by nuclear, and what are the storage issues associated with it?
..and how is it dangerous?

fussioonn

Nuclear. I think that if we could safely dispose of it, then we're good to go. Maybe we can send it to Mercury. Nobody gives a flying f*** about that place.

Originally Posted by The Invisible Man

Nuclear. I think that if we could safely dispose of it, then we're good to go. Maybe we can send it to Mercury. Nobody gives a flying f*** about that place.

Bad idea... Dumping shit on planets.... what a bunch of slobs.