Welcome to Gaia! ::

Okay, here is my take on it.

Passenger cars will be lighter and smaller 30 years from now and most of them will probably be electric, hydrogen fueled, or biomass/hybred fueled. A lot more fuel will be produced from biomass like sugar and corn, but fuels will probably be made by Thermal depolymerization (TDP) as well. Thermal depolymerization is a process by which organic waste (such as turkey offal or cattle slaughter by products) is converted into hydrocarbons with heat and presure. Some of the resulting oil produced goes into fueling the process itself.

Larger vehicles that require more energy such as tractor trailers, military trucks and tanks, and aircraft may still be using fossil fuels or biomass deisels fuels.

Technology will definitely play a big energy role in the future. As old sources of energy become more costly there will be more economic pressure to develop new ways of obtaining power. For example photovoltaic cells that capture solar power might become cheaper and more efficient as more companies research and develope ways to improve them or battery capacities may be improved for electric vehicles or hydrogen fuel cells will become affordable.

In the end though, I think energy cost overall may simply be higher 30 years from now. We may have to accept the idea of paying more to power our technologies or at least find ways to make things more efficient. In fact I think increasing efficiency will be a way of life in the future.

I think that most of these advancements will come from private industries as the reality of higher energy costs begin to set in. Governments will try to change our behaviour as well, but I think economic pressure will be the biggest behaviour modifier.

Yeah, I've heard they will be making new heaters for homes with natural gas that generate electricity as well as heat the home. They say that much of the energy produced by the gas flames that heat the home is wasted and that it could be harnessesed with some sort of generator. I don't know the details but it seems like sound thinking if they can keep the costs reasonable. I think it's good for people to think of solutions now rather than later when we might be in a more compromising position. 3nodding

I don't think that there is a problem with nuclear power plants bieng a cover for nuclear weapons
we already have enough to blow up the earth more than we need

The bigger threat here is the nuclear reactor meltdowns

I'm not sure if these are as big a problem as people make them out to be, though.

We mine the radioactive material out of the ground in the first place. Purifying it does cause it to release more radiation faster but it also has the effect of very quickly reducing how long it will be radioactive. I've also heard about different kinds of breeder reactors which can easily produce power from "radioactive waste" which we in the US have already buried underground. I wish I could remember which country was supposedly doing this, though. Basically, it's reprocessing waste in different kinds of reactors. I mean, if they're still releasing so much radiation then it's a no-brainer that there should be a way to harness that energy.

As for the threat of nuclear weapons, I've heard you need to have way more refined radioactive material than what's used in Nuclear Reactors. Apparently it's a pretty hard chemistry problem but I don't really know the details well enough to really confirm.

Basically, it sounds like a lot of the "common knowledge" floating around (here in the US, anyways) about Nuclear Reactors is leftover FUD (short for Fear, Uncertainty, Denial). If so, it's pretty thuroughly spread out, though, since even my dad (whom I consider smart) is stuck on the "waste management" problem.

The most practical source of energy is nuclear, but the only problem is what to do with the water that becomes radioactive when it cools the engine. There are a number of solutions for this, but since the world isin a state of fear about non existant "global warming," more people buy electric cars that cost huge amounts of money, more money for the government, and few people realize that electric cars do more harm than good. One electric plant releases more pollution in a week than a city does in a month. It is a complicated process that does harm the enviorment. The other stupid thing about global warming is that they say it is the emission of Co2 into the atmosphere, but one volcano eruption emits more Co2 in one eruption than Los Angeles, New York and Mexico City combined for 10 years. As to the person above me, oil companies arn't the problem, it's the media, poloticians and legal system. They create problems that do not exist and tell the world to blame someone else. The oil companies are run by hard working people who are constantly battered by the media and have laws passed against them when they provide the US with most of it's income. So does that seem "fair?"

The problem with your argument, ferret, is that volcanos don't erupt as often as every 10 years, not in the magnitude necessary to produce the amount of those cities. In any case, we can't turn off or reduce emissions by volcanos anyway, and since it's an accumulative effect of adding more CO2 in the air, we do what we can to reduce vehicle emissions.

One thing I can tell you FOR SURE is that global warming is a fact. It is not some made-up problem, it has been measured and calculated by scientists all over the globe that the world, in fact, is rising in temperature. What's under DEBATE is the cause and what effects it may have in the future.

Oil companies run by hard working people? They may certainly have hard working people working for them, but the people in charge certainly find time to go out on their yachts and pad their wallets with the money of said hard working people. Ever hear of Enron?

I think the "electric plants" you're refering to are the coal-burning plants which provide the US with most of its power, and are among the dirtiest fossil fuels. Oil is cleaner, but natural gas is even cleaner than that. The problem is that both oils and natural gas aren't as cheap to use or transport as coal, which is why we use the stuff so much. Nuclear energy is incredibly clean, and in no way contaminates the water used to cool it. The problem arises when the fuel source is no longer useful, and we have no place to put the nuclear waste. So far we're sealing them in drums and putting them deep in the ground, but that won't last forever. Also, in the case of a nuclear meltdown, the isotope melts through the ground until it hits an underground water source, and readily contaminates THAT water source and the surrounding environment.

The cleanest and most renewable sources we have are hydroelecticity at dams and tides, which cause environmental repercussions of their own, and wind power, which is takes up lots of space and is potentially costly. Solar energy is viable, but is not yet efficient enough for us to use on a large scale. Use of methane gas produced by fecal matter is the best idea I've seen yet, which produces a clean energy source and recycles at the same time.

Here, I'll be more specific. One FACTORY that makes electric cars.