In light of these spills

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0730/expert-china-oil-spill-bigger-stated/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7918000/BP-oil-spill-Was-Tony-Hayward-right-after-all.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64H56O20100518

(Links just to show that there are spills everywhere :\ )

Most of you have heard of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and maybe even the spills in the Niger Delta or the Yellow Sea, and hopefully at least one or two of you have heard about Michigan.

These are all recent spills around the globe, and the manner in which these spills should be dealt with is widely contested, from soaking it up (a cosmetic band-aid, really), to dispersing agents (which dilute the spills, but effectively make it larger), to vacuuming and using a centrifuge to separate, or using biological agents or organisms to reduce or eliminate the hydrocarbons, among other tactics.

Do you think these companies will be held accountable on a reasonable time scale? The Exxon Valdez captain was drunk, let off with out much more than a slap on the wrist, and reparations took 20 years to finalize, and they are still dealing with the oil. To me, that is not reasonable, what so ever.

What other types of consequences do you think are necessary for not taking the precautions needed to prevent disasters like this from happening? They weasel out of fines, jail time, and reformed environmental safety precautions, just to have the same thing happen at a later time.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/20/BA1A1494TB.DTL

With the introduction of a company who knows what it is doing (above link), and various efforts around the world to make nuclear, solar, wind, water dams and geothermal energy all viable options (if synchronized to work in concert), how do you think it will be before major countries stop depending on oil as a major source of energy, and start relying on cleaner sources of energy on nation wide scales?

What type of energies do you think will be relied upon most? This is obviously depending largely on geographical features, so answer according to your location.

Not to be overly American nationalist but I'm just happy that china is screwing up some to. not to much because than it would screw me over to.

A) You're dumb.

B) Watch more news.

C) Go back to school and learn how to reply with proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation so that you sound more coherent, and can stay on topic when writing replies to someone who obviously invested time and effort into writing something less controversial than all the other shitty religious (or lack there of) threads, loli threads, threads that begin with half a sentence and an incomplete idea, and threads that deal with hypothetical/improbable/impossible ideas.


http://www.yourownpower.com/Power/

Up north, they've discovered a way to gather energy from geothermal "hot spots" at hundreds of degrees lower than in other places around the world, and Alaska is one of the best areas in the US to gather energy in this fashion.


http://www.ciri.com/content/company/FireIsland.aspx

One of the Alaska Native corporations is very into introducing cleaner energy for people around the state, and should be starting work on a wind farm this year. It does get windy up here very often.


http://www.absak.com/library/solar-photovoltaic-power

Solar energy is a less viable option, but plenty of smaller applications for the product are used state wide in an effort to rely less on the power that is provided for the population.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galena_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Yes, a proposed nuclear power plant to be put to use in Alaska for energy consumption, not run but the military and used by the general public.


As for oil, I am convinced that it should not be a major source of energy for much longer, anywhere in the world. The companies, the hazards, and the destruction of natural habitats, as well as the pointless fighting and arguing for it everywhere kind of makes it not very much worth it, except for the ludicrous capital it brings in. Not the best of ideals to strive for.

If we could ever discover a way to perform cold fission nuclear power would probably become one of the most prominent forms of energy we will ever see.

If we hadn't stunted battery development all those years ago, we would probably see much better electrical cars today. Not to mention it would have been easier to integrate earlier.

You seem to not be paying attention to what's been posted. If you had followed the last link in the OP, you would have found a name to a very good company who has been doing research and development on fantastic batteries. They last hundreds of miles, and have been tested in extreme weather conditions, and are so far holding up at least to what's expected, if not better than.

http://www.betterplace.com/

No, I have.

I'm saying imagine if we hadn't been delayed those years and then think of how easier it would have been to integrate the batteries of today into the world before.

I heard about that spill in China too. Is this a new fad or something? Goddamn hipsters and their series of spilling oil. Seriously, what the fuck are these guys doing?

I definitely agree with you in that companies haven't been held accountable reasonably. However, I don't think that piling on more consequences wouldn't be of any benefit either. These companies get little more than a sharp reprimanding because the world remains too dependent upon their services to do anything more severe. It's a conflict of ideals and interests that can't be won, and will unfortunately remain that way until a better alternative for energy can be found.

Going off of that thought though, I don't think a major switch is going to happen for another three or four decades. While alternative energy itself may be starting to become available, in order for it to supplant oil, the rest of technology has to catch up as well. Everything today has been so well adjusted to operating on oil, that reversing it is going to take a lot of time and funding.

For the US midwest, it looks like most states have been focusing on ethanol. A lot of farmers have switched to planting mostly corn and soy crops due to energy companies causing a sort of "boom" in demand for them. I don't think ethanol fuel to be an ideal alternative, but progress is progress, and it's a good step in the right direction.

Wind and Solar power are the way to go at least until we can find a new power source.

Wasn't there a way we could take ethanol from corn or something?

Ethanol already mainly comes form corn.

But it's not very efficient. You typically look at it about being 50% or so of what gas produces.

Tch. Well, why not solar power for the day, and water/wind power for the night? Just construct a couple more Hoover dams and bingo

wind tends to be more active during the day

I love reading up on these kind of things.

Suddenly everyone is an expert on drilling and energy production in general.

The energy demands of just the United States alone is massive. And Damn near every single person wants cheap fuel or natural gas for heating their homes and cheap electricity etc.

And cheap means faster and more drilling. Cheap also means sometimes skirting safety to save money and time.

Everyone's heart seems to bleed when someone mentions the spill in the Gulf. But if given the choice between an oil spill or six dollars for a gallon of gas. Face it. We know what the majority would choose. Cause really, it doesn't concern a lot of us. And you know it.

Anyway, to answer the question, wind turbines would probably work well here in Western Pennsylvania. Always seems to be windy as hell.

Run-on sentances are acceptable though.

pot, meet kettle.

I noticed people who try and enforce perfect grammar throughout the site always seem to think they have achieved perfect grammar themselves. Which is, in fact, not the case.

On topic:

It's doubtful that nuclear power will ever be a major source of energy in the US. Even with experts claiming it as a safe and clean energy source, the stigma of nuclear power plants after Chernobyl will never be erased.

Hydro power isn't restricted to dams. Another source of power that is being considered for the future is tidal power. The only major issues are availability of waves and high costs.

Link:

http://www.energy-consumers-edge.com/tidal_energy_use.html

Hydro power will be the biggest contributor of power, but I doubt it will be able to fill the gap left by fossil fuel energy on its own. So, as the OP mentioned, it will come down to other alternate energy farms working in concert to provide power.

As to when this will happen? Probably when we start running low on fossil fuel and it becomes extremely expensive. Meaning, probably within a decade or two.

Personally I believe nuclear power is the way forward to provide the bulk of the energy required to power (in my case) Australia and possibly the rest of the world.
As right now nuclear power offers the most power for your money, it's relatively clean produces its own fuel (fast breeder reactors) and there are newer designs that reuse old waste.

Wind is unreliable, solar will only be good when it's daylight but until they can utilise the whole light spectrum to produce power it would lag behind, still better than wind though.

Hydro can't be used everywhere but there is a fairly large environmental effect to building those dams, tital is good but again you can't just put them everywhere they too have an impact on the marine environment.

Obviously nuclear will be phased out eventually but for now we need something in the now to produce power while we improve our other energy sources, it's just sad the hippies are so obsessed with their green vision they can't accept a compromise and believe that nuclear power plants are all dodgy 50s Soviet botch jobs (funny enough those very reactors continued to run for decades without a hitch).

I'm all for a green future but I want it to become a reality realisticly.

It goes on to say that it could provide 6% of the global demand for electricity. I'm liking this; I hadn't even heard much about it before. The whole thing about 40 viable spots to make use of this method kind of sucks.


A little on thorium reactors. Much better than Uranium reactors. Which is what America is all about, has been since Manhattan. Yay, nukes. Thorium was talked about even then, by the scientists working on the project, as a cleaner and more reliable source of energy. It was shuffled aside due to the preference to Uranium, though.




I'd imagine there is less of an impact than spilling millions of barrels of crude into the sea and not doing much to fix it.




Progress being made on it.

Build them in space and beam the energy to earth, Scotty. Wireless Energy Transfer

Companies have been left only with "a slap on the wrist" because they have too much influence...or too many friends. Like when some British MP's were protesting against American crackdown of British company...riiiiight.

Truth is, it will continue to happen until government and corporations will be divided by a thick line, and the former will be ready to kick some serious ass, and not just talk about it.

As for spill cleaning...why not just light it up? Sure, it's dirty, but it (usually) gets the job done. A special ships that can collect oil, and separate it from water exists, and they appear even better solution, but there isn't enough of them to really count in bigger disasters.



As for new power sources...I'm all for any new alternatives, and cold fusion in particular (which is being researched in France, for example) but in all honesty, situation won't change until we will find another energy source that is as profitable to exploit as oil. Let's face it: Nobody is willing to pay a lot for energy as long as cheaper alternative exists. Sad but true.

Another would be an orbital ring of solar panels would be awesome, as sun keeps shining in space no matter what (plus, it doesn't really pollute the Earth...I mean, it's in space), and we already have technological basis on which we could develop ways the effectively transmit it to the ground. The problem of course, is that it's incredibly costly to realize on scale which would satisfy the astronomic electricity demand of technologically developed continent. It's the second biggest concern after cost-effectiveness.

I would actually like to see more nuclear power plants built. Other than the fact that they still haven't gotten over the issue of safely storing depleted uranium, I think it's a pretty good source of energy.



At this moment, wind power is providing 2% of all energy worldwide. Not too bad for an "unreliable" source and without it being fully utilized.



There have already been some breakthroughs:

Tidal fences will be used to keep fishes away, and auto shutdowns are planned to be installed for the safety of larger fish. They've also created a river type turbine that dramatically decreased the death toll of the marine animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power#Environmental_impact



Sounds pretty good. Makes me wonder why it hasn't been implemented. Hardly any cons vs. uranium.

Has anyone bothered to look into Thorium? It's pretty good stuff. Beats traditional nuclear reactors by a mile.

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_costs/thorium_costs.php

Yes it's a long read but if you look at it, it's great stuff.