[Andreas]

I'm just asking this out of curiosity. What do you think would be a viable option to replace petroleum in the nearby future? Since oil production will most likely start to decline over the next decades, what in your opinion would be viable alternatives to replace it?

IMO I find it unlikely any fuel-cell tech or somesuch will become a viable option for energy production in some time (partly because of short-sightedness by governments to fund research into them, partly because of the technical difficulties relating to practical appliances).

So, I would believe that coal could once again become important part in energy production, since it is widely used even today, it is cost-effective (???), and there should be enough of it to last quite some time. Not to mention all the pollution it causes.

Just a thought, I'm not any expert by far (be free to flame ), but what are your thoughts? I'm not saying world's oil reserves are just gonna run dry all of a sudden, but what other forms of energy production could be putted into greater use to accompany petroleum?

[vyper]

The technical difficulties of fuel cells would vanish if Governments subsidised the appropriate research. Hell the UK could avoid it's upcoming energy crisis if we funded national use of solar roof tiles.

[aldo_14]

You have to also (with respect to coal) consider the environmental impact of that excess carbon.

[Flipside]

Britain uses more coal and Gas generators than Oil ones, however, since all three of them are sort of interlinked, I see coal running out at about the same time.

As for Solar Panels, yes, there are roof-tiles that double as Solar Panels. If the government spent the money on a re-roofing program, passed some laws about new roofs or even offered bonuses to people using SP Roof tiles, Britain could probably power itself without any need for generators, and pay for itself within 20 years.

Alas 20 years is 5 elections away. That's the main weakness of Democracy as we practice it.

[Kie99]

"Nucular" power is the future, it'll never fun out and the waste could simply be jettisoned into deep space.

[Flipside]

Well, it may be ok for large-scale generators etc, but until fusion is improved, they are a massive risk both through accident and deliberate attack. Also, Nuclear power is not much good for Cars etc unless you are using Electric Cars, which currently use more energy to charge for a 50 mile drive than a petrol car would use.

[Gank]

Solar powered roof tiles are grand for powering your house but they're ****all good on a truck or airliner. Oil isnt really used that much for producing electricity anyways, its more for fuel, lubricants, plastics, etc etc, theres no real viable alternative to it.

[pyro-manic]

Not to mention the mess mining makes. Ever been to the Rhondda? Thought not I wouldn't recommend it - it's in a horrible state. They've got the highest percentage of people on incapacity benefit in the UK. The other big mining areas of Britain are almost as bad.

It's also very expensive to extract. The south Wales valleys have billions of tonnes of coal left in the seams, but the cost of getting to it is enormous.

The thing is, there won't ever be a shift away from oil-based energy strategy, because the oil companies have the government (and those of other countries) over a barrel.

My personal thoughts are about fuel cells and nuclear fusion. Those two combined would be all that's needed for the world's energy needs. Hell, the Americans could even keep a hold on things, as the material needed for fusion (either deuterium, tritium or some form of Helium) can be found in vast quantities on the moon.

[Ghostavo]

There are solar powered cars already IIRC.

http://www.speedace.info/solar_cars.htm

[Gank]

Cars is grand but what sort of square meterage of panels are you going to need to haul 20 ton of gravel. Or food, or the cars to the showroom?

[Ghostavo]

The technology is still in its infancy, let it grow and you will see...

[Andreas]

Originally posted by pyro-manic
Not to mention the mess mining makes. Ever been to the Rhondda? Thought not I wouldn't recommend it - it's in a horrible state. They've got the highest percentage of people on incapacity benefit in the UK. The other big mining areas of Britain are almost as bad.

It's also very expensive to extract. The south Wales valleys have billions of tonnes of coal left in the seams, but the cost of getting to it is enormous.

Yes, I'm aware of the effects that coal mining/using has to the enviroment, resulting pollution, and health problems. I was just talking about the possibility that the use of coal could increase, obviously it is not by far the best option at all when compared to fusion and such

[Gank]

It'd want to grow an awful lot bigger than it is now, and an awful lot quicker than it has done up til now.

[Deepblue]

Hydrogen fuel cells,
Needs two things:
A. Cheaper price for cars.
B. Refueling infrastructure.

[pyro-manic]

If there was any decent amount of investment, then that'd happen very quickly (I'd say 20 years at most if fingers were pulled out), but it's being blocked by the oil companies. They don't want to see their profit margins reduced....

Ai No Koriida: Absolutely. I think it probably will make a "comeback" to some extent, though the focus seems to be on gas now (hence all the shenanigens around the Caspian and Black Seas at the moment - there are vast gas reserves there.

[icespeed]

anyone ever read ben elton's 'gridlock'? he mentions hydrogen combustion for car fuel there.

i reckon ethanol would be good. rock down to the petrol station, fill up the car and decant a few extra litres for yourself...

[pyro-manic]

Heheh, and go blind/die instantly?

[icespeed]

well, you could add stuff to it, right? i mean no one said you had to drink it straight.

[pyro-manic]

I'm just messing with ya.

Ethanol is certainly an option, though you'd have to have guards at the filling stations, to fend off the winos...

[Nuke]

the us government had plasma screens back in the 60's! the fuelcells they got now are vastly superior to anything we think exists. they have plutonium batteries which power output is still classified. the only reason to classify technologies is when its vastly superior to what everyone else has. the unclassified technologies are impressive enough as it is. a wide array of us military ground vehicles are multifuel capable, including the m1a1 tank (i think). deisel and gas-turbine engines have always been multifuel compatable.

not a military tech but there is a solar powered glider with a retractable prop. it can take off and land powered, batteries recharge in flight should the motor be needed to reaquire altitude. once in the air the motor shuts down and the prop retracts and the pilot os free to ride thermals to gain altitude. i heard the thing flew from alaska to argentina without landing and it didnt use a drop of fuel. then of course there's nasa's helios, but it doesnt neearly compete witht the solar glider.

seriously if we ran out of fuel today, we would have the technology to convert to alternate fuel sources. but because our energy infrastructure is set up to use gasolene and it would cost a fortune to upgrade every gas station, refinery, engine, and powerplant.but for now the cost is still high and the fuel still flows so why change things.