What are future energy sources? The best alternatives for fossil fuels

In the fairly near future I see "muscle power" as the main energy source.

 

That's not an energy source. That's usage of energy.

 

I still say muscle power. I don't see any of the energy sources like those mentioned here becoming good alternatives to petroleum when the planet starts to run out of it, because the world's population is growing too large, and not enough planning has been done to develop a decent solar or wind infrastructure for the time when we will need to rely on them.

 

Can you explain how that's an energy source? Muscles use energy; they're not a source of it.

Or are you suggesting actually burning that muscle in hybrid power plants/concentration camps, casting people into furnaces to produce electricity (that still wouldn't make muscle and energy source).

There are plenty of options other than solar and wind (actually, all of our energy is solar). We still have plenty of stuff to burn beyond oil.

 

and it´s clean to use it either, but there is not enough place on the surface of the earth to produce all the plants that will be needed to get the oil from

 

LOL! Hey, maybe I am!

No, what I'm suggesting is beyond power plants. In a post-peak oil world, it is possible that there will be no infrastructure left to distribute electricity to your home (and many, many people won't have homes anyway when they can't make the repayments and their houses are repossessed), so you will have to generate electricity yourself (in which case you will need many years of spare parts and a good knowledge of electronics to fix your solar panels or wind stations when they eventually break down, as everything eventually does). The other alternative is not to have any electricity at all. That's why I refer to "muscle power". But I do like the idea of passive solar devices like solar cookers. You don't impact on the planet in any way to operate a solar oven.

Exactly right... another problem to things like plant-based fuels. We need our crops for FOOD production to feed our exploding world population, not to fuel cars for all those people queued up in traffic jams for hours a day with only one person in each car.

 

Electricity/Heating: Fusions my bet. Till then we should invest more in traditional nuclear power.

Transportation: Hybrid/Ethanol or possibly hybrid/biodiesel. Hopefully Sugarcane ethanol, as it's much more efficient then corn.

 

Fresh water or sea water? And how long tilll thats gone? Id rather have hydrogen, oil, nuclear all that shit used up WAY before we begin to tap into the very thing we need to survive, water. Maybe we should start using oxygen next hehe

 

If we can get nuclear fusion to work all our energy problems are solved.

But maybe in some 100 years we could even use a little black hole for generating energy. If its small enough that it emitts significant Hawking radiation, you can just throw any shit you wish into it and it converts it into energy (It really doesnt matter what you throw in, it only depends on the mass).

 

So true...

My government (Australian) is offering $1000 rebates to people who convert their cars to Liquid Petroleum Gas. What a joke!!!

 

it would be nice if they would legalize and use hemp oil to run cars and for heating. Don't particulary think its going to happen, but it would have many benefits including a fuel source.

 

He said HEMP OIL not marijuana oil
Hemp is totally different from marijuana

 

combustion is still combustion and still dumps carbon in mass quantities into the air and water, and that, is, the problem, whatever you are burning, be it cow shit or atoms. (ok what nukes dump isn't carbon but still just as bad or worse, along with all the other problems that go with THAT NONsolution)

fuels from biomass do have their possibly ok uses in home heating and cooking, but for generating electricity and propelling transportation, the web of life, and thus ultimately ourselves, simply cannot afford our continuing to overuse combustion.

=^^=
.../\...

 

In indiana there is a big push to use biofuels, though I fear that in the long run big money find ways to create more need for more profit and we will find more land destroyed for energy production, a choice between food and fuel,(Guess who makes the choice) and I wonder if useing crops for this purpose would effect the enviroment as the products are converted to vapor waste rather than being recycled back into the ground.

 

wind, solar, and geothermal

Also, fortunate people that live in wealthy neations should learn to live with less.

 

One person on here has posted a well thought out reply. Thank you, themnax.

And can I just say to all you pot heads, dang it, hemp and hemp oil are not the solutions to ANYTHING. We know they're made from the same plant as marijuana; that doesn't make them magical.

Agreed that burning of anything in all forms is a terrible idea. We have to begin to wean ourselves off of combustion created energy. Whether you're burning alcohol made from organically grown corn or gasoline, you are still emitted unhealthy amounts of greenhouse gases and other harmful things into the environment, the source does not matter.

I would like to bring up the point of the destructiveness of hydroelectric power. I have an enormous problem with how detrimental it is to the environment. In order to created to be able to harvest the power of water, rivers and streams must be dammed. When this happens, all the surrounding land is completely flooded and the entire ecosystem in changed. Even the surrounding areas that are not submerged are altered due to the added water in the atmosphere. I personally think this is just as much of a crime as not making the switch over to more "environmentally conscious" alternatives. It really, really makes me sick, honestly. I think it's a crime.

Solar energy is the most fantastic option. It has the least impact on the earth out of all the "green" options. Solar panels can be placed on already existing structures and need minimal maintenance. I do not understand why more are not used, when the effects are so positive in so many ways.

Wind is also a good option, except they require large areas of land and cannot be used as extensively as solar, due to geographic and weather requirements. Plus, many prime areas for wind farms are right in the flight paths of many species of migratory birds, many of which are threatened or endangered. When these birds fly at night, the windmills become birdie blenders.

I think in the future, these should be our two main sources of energy for our planet. This thread also proves how uneducated most people are about this issue, and that is another obstacle that must be overcome.

Much love to all of you.

 

i do aggree with the problem about hydro. big dams at low elevations burry the most beautiful, and often indiginously sacred, bits of countryside under the water empounded behind them. and i'm not advocating building these and even see as desirable the removal of many of them. where i favor hydro, that is every drop of water, other then for fish ladders, released from a dam turning some sort of generator, is all these dams, especialy little ones up in the hills at higher elevations, many build in the past few decades, that never had generators built in and many of the older ones which once had them from which the were removed rather then upgraded or replaced as their tecnology was seen as approaching obsolescense or increased maintainence cost, that all of these, wouldbe, couldbe, shouldbe, contributing energy to the grid. that there needs to be mandated that for any dam to be built it must also generate energy. that are just to dam many dams that arn't doing so.

solar and wind are the best alternatives of course. in all cases generating needs to be distributed, something that comes from every or nearly every household, bussiness, and any other kind of settlement and structure, rather then being all or mostly generated centrally, which keeps the few in control of it, to be only consumed by the many.

when vested energy intrests attempt to point out what they claim to be the shortcommings of noncombustion alternatives, invariably it is in the context of centeralized generation facilities that they make their claims. of course that is all THEIR interested in, but it needs to not be what we are.

if we look beyond the box of centralized power generation it becomes redilly appearant that noncombustion alternatives can and do work, and while by no means free to build and install, besides being more environmentaly friendly, they become more economicly favorable as well, though again from the perspective of real people rather then vested economic interests. and while not as abundant perhapse, as the energy gluttony we've spent this past century becoming accustomed to, quite sufficient for everyone to have at least one modest refrigerator, computer and internet connection.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I agree with you on these issues.

 

I probably should have re-read what I typed cuz a lot of it doesn't really make sense, lol, but I just thought I'd add this, and it might hit home, especially if you're from Texas. Due to damming and over use of the Rio Grande for agricultural purposes on both the US and Mexico sides, the Rio Grande doesn't even reach the Gulf of Mexico anymore. The Rio GRANDE. The biggest river in Texas. Because of stupid things like the gigantic Amistad reservoir in the middle of the desert where huge amounts of that water are lost to evaporation anyway. I wonder all the time who thinks these decisions are good ideas. Amazing.

 

Depends. Nothing sustainable or clean about solar cells and
batteries and inverters. If you mean passive solar, then sure.
Depending on how the equipment used is produced.

Wind? If you make the windmill on site with local materials and
use the power directly, sure.

Hemp? Not if it's produced industrially.

Looks to me as if you are talking about generating electricity.
Which means you are talking about having things that need
electrical power. Which means factories and mines and trucks
and heavy equipment and nasty chemicals and massive
amounts of energy and freshwater.

Don't need electricity except for very small amounts for
communication, which can be produced with clockwork
motors or by hand/foot.

You can get light from woodgas, methane, alcohol and
tree resin, veg oil and tree resin....

Heat and hot water and cooking and workshop fuel
from methane or woodgas.

Electricity is _very_ inefficient. You are always using
some other energy source to produce it. Energy
sources that can be used directly.

Littlefoot