• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What is the energy of the future (50 years)

What will be energy source 50 yrs from now?

  • Oil

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Natural Gas

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Coal

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Mix of fossil fuels

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Biomass / ethanol / grown

    Votes: 3 8.8%

  • Solar

    Votes: 2 5.9%

  • Wind

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Nuclear

    Votes: 9 26.5%

  • Nuclear Fusion

    Votes: 8 23.5%

  • Chuck Norris slowly eating a banana

    Votes: 6 17.6%
  • Total voters
    34
Smeagol said:
Solar and wind depending on region for home energy needs; mostly solar. I have a gut feeling about hydrogen power for transportation and industry, which could simultaneously address drought/water shortage concerns as hydrogen energy's only byproduct (exhaust for lack of a better word) is distilled quality pure water.

BTW: On one of the educational cable channels I saw a program on solar energy that said the research is just one breakthrough away from discovering how to harvest a spectrum of sunlight the current technology cannot see that will improve solar electric production 500%. Once discovered, a small rooftop solar system will be more than adequate to full power homes.

I also think we could see more subterranean population centers in cold climates. If you go down deep enough underground, heating and air-conditioning becomes obsolete as the temperature is around 70 degrees all the time.

Underground city - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome |*Underground Atlanta

Add more stores, restaurants and even housing and the energy needs drop big time.
Click to expand...

I read an article on this in a magazine I subscribe to a couple of months ago. It looks interesting...Earthscrapes appear to be the buidlings of the future. The one in the article is going to be built in Mexico city.

Earth-scraper: Architects design 65-storey building 300 metres below ground | Mail Online
 
LadyMoonlight said:
I read an article on this in a magazine I subscribe to a couple of months ago. It looks interesting...Earthscrapes appear to be the buidlings of the future. The one in the article is going to be built in Mexico city.

Earth-scraper: Architects design 65-storey building 300 metres below ground | Mail Online
Click to expand...
I expect some interesting difficulties would arise for structure that far underground.


Frankly one of the things I am interested in when it comes to buildings is tech that allows them to be more self-sufficient, not requiring as much power, etc.
 
Peter Grimm said:
I'm curious what you think the primary energy source of the future will be. I'm going to list a few, I'm not going to give you an option of "all" or "both" or "a mix" because that's a cop out.... make a decision and support it.

50 years from today, what do you think will be the primary source of energy around the world? Will it be oil? Natural gas? Coal? A mix of fossil fuels? Biomass? Solar? Wind? Nuclear? Nuclear fusion? Some as-of-yet uninvented technology?

Let's hear your thoughts. There's no wrong answer unless you want to check back 50 years from now.
Click to expand...

Can't vote on the poll because "all of the above" is the only accurate answer, not a cop out. The only exception may be fusion, I'm not sure if that will be ready for commercial use in 50 years. What will change a lot I think is the amount of each of those that we'll use.

I suspect nuclear will be the highest percentage of our electricity generation in 50 years. Wind and Solar will also make up a larger percentage. All of the fossil fuels will be used less than they are today I think.
 
The Mark said:
I expect some interesting difficulties would arise for structure that far underground.


Frankly one of the things I am interested in when it comes to buildings is tech that allows them to be more self-sufficient, not requiring as much power, etc.
Click to expand...

One advantage is they dont require heating or cooling. Underground it's constantly betweenn 50 and 70 degrees no matter how hot or cold it is on up at the surface. Then, as I think I understand it, if you have to use heating the "earth sheltering" of being below ground makes it super efficient as the little heat that might be needed to warm things up cannot easily dissipate.
 
Smeagol said:
One advantage is they dont require heating or cooling. Underground it's constantly betweenn 50 and 70 degrees no matter how hot or cold it is on up at the surface. Then, as I think I understand it, if you have to use heating the "earth sheltering" of being below ground makes it super efficient as the little heat that might be needed to warm things up cannot easily dissipate.
Click to expand...
One potential issue that comes to mind is...earthquakes.

Or, hell, floods.

Windstorms would be much less of an issue, for obvious reasons.
 
Nuclear energy is already a viable option -- if done properly (the Navy has been using it safely for over 50 years).

Coal, oil will be the primary source through at least the next 50+ years, unquestionably (unless certain circle's attempt to sabotage it are successful).

Nuclear fusion as others have noted is certainly the holy grail of energy, but I'd doubtful we'll see anything viable in the next 50 years, though you never know.

Hydroelectric is viable on a limited scale, and always can be.

Geothermal, same as hydro, limited scale, serious technological difficulties.

Solar, same as hydro, but much more limited scale, though of broader use on very small scales. Will always be relatively very expensive inasmuch as the panels don't last but 5 - 10 years max.

Chuck Norris slowly munching on a banana? Obviously better than wind power, but at his age, how long can we rely on him to save us? ;) Personally, I think bovine flatulence (not on the list, unfortunately) is more viable though.
 
EdwinWillers said:
Chuck Norris slowly munching on a banana? Obviously better than wind power, but at his age, how long can we rely on him to save us? ;) Personally, I think bovine flatulence (not on the list, unfortunately) is more viable though.
Click to expand...
Not even death can beat chuck norris? :2razz:
 
My best answer is that it's up in the air right now and so "Chuck Norris slowly eating a banana". Everything has it's pro and con column and have trade offs so I think a varied mix of current technologies though improved, I've heard of theories involving improved solar harvesting using various bacterial processes to farm energy, battery improvements, more efficient fossil fuel consumption, hydrogen, and even magnetic engine experiments.
 
The Mark said:
Not even death can beat chuck norris? :2razz:
Click to expand...
Chuck Norris actually died a few years ago, death has still been trying to work up the nerve to tell him. :mrgreen:
 
cpgrad08 said:
in the next 50 years we will see the rise of Nuclear Energy again.
Click to expand...

I really hope so. I'm worried that the 'nuclear renaissance' has been stabbed in the back by anti-nuclear agitators and a woeful lack of education on nuclear power. Initially I didn't think Fukashima would have much of an impact given both the economics/energy demand for many industrializing countries in tandem with the ostensible carbon goals of many European states. However the headlong Franco-German plunge into decommissioning nuclear facilities, the pressure in Britain to cancel or hamstring the development of the proposed new plants has left me less hopeful. The United States has shifted emphasis because of the gas glut and the seemingly permanent obstacles that regulators, legislators, and attorneys put in the way of new plants despite the token few that have been approved. China and India don't seem like they are planning on shifting gears anytime soon have both seen the emergence of anti-nuclear movements for the first time. Don't get me started on Japan's suicidal path.

I hope that circumstances will be so overwhelming that the obvious benefits of nuclear power can smash up ill-founded opposition but history seems to tell us we should keep our hopes modest. =/
 
The Mark said:
One potential issue that comes to mind is...earthquakes.

Or, hell, floods.

Windstorms would be much less of an issue, for obvious reasons.
Click to expand...

True.
 
Until all the energy companies die off we will not have a new energy welcomed. Anything that could threaten the current technology has either been bought out and terminated or has been kept quiet.
 
The Mark said:
I expect some interesting difficulties would arise for structure that far underground.


Frankly one of the things I am interested in when it comes to buildings is tech that allows them to be more self-sufficient, not requiring as much power, etc.
Click to expand...

Water is one of the main difficulties I read about.
 
Sherman123 said:
I really hope so. I'm worried that the 'nuclear renaissance' has been stabbed in the back by anti-nuclear agitators and a woeful lack of education on nuclear power. Initially I didn't think Fukashima would have much of an impact given both the economics/energy demand for many industrializing countries in tandem with the ostensible carbon goals of many European states. However the headlong Franco-German plunge into decommissioning nuclear facilities, the pressure in Britain to cancel or hamstring the development of the proposed new plants has left me less hopeful. The United States has shifted emphasis because of the gas glut and the seemingly permanent obstacles that regulators, legislators, and attorneys put in the way of new plants despite the token few that have been approved. China and India don't seem like they are planning on shifting gears anytime soon have both seen the emergence of anti-nuclear movements for the first time. Don't get me started on Japan's suicidal path.

I hope that circumstances will be so overwhelming that the obvious benefits of nuclear power can smash up ill-founded opposition but history seems to tell us we should keep our hopes modest. =/
Click to expand...

America Nuclear energy has been in trouble before that after three mile island their have been no new license issued to build new plants.
 
cpgrad08 said:
America Nuclear energy has been in trouble before that after three mile island their have been no new license issued to build new plants.
Click to expand...
The problems with nuclear plants are mainly political, so far as I know.
 
The Mark said:
The problems with nuclear plants are mainly political, so far as I know.
Click to expand...

They also cost a lot, whereas we still have a ton of coal, natural gas, and oil to get us by. No doubt there's a political angle as well, but don't underplay the economics of this either... it's a huge investment upfront to build a nuclear power plant.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Fusion if they can get it to work correctly - combined with solar for the extra daytime loads. Wind and hydro will have their place as well but I doubt they'll ever be the primary source of power generation.


In the interim:
Thorium is a good option to replace coal and oil. Natural gas will be used for heavy transportation and probably aircraft, though new advances in aviation fuel production from water and air might work out better in the long run.
Click to expand...

Nuclear fusion fascinates me. We know the science is good, we can get fusion reactions in a lab, we just aren't technically savvy enough right now to net more than we put in (although I believe we have accomplished this as well, on a small scale. Not sure)

Once we master fusion this will catapult humanity in to a new era. No kidding.

Much like there was a Bronze Age followed by an Iron Age, and so forth, mastering fusion would be a giant leap forward for the human race. I hope I'm alive to see it happen.
 
Solar and electro-magnetic. Fossil fuels will be obsolete.

I can't back up my claims though. It's just a intuitive guess. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom