What route should be taken to transition from fossil fuel to alternative energy?

Question

Thanks.

Answer 1

Nuclear fission power plants should be built as quickly as we can to replace first coal, then the other fossil fuels (along with the useless wind turbines).

All subsidies given to the wind and solar industries should be stopped immediately and the money diverted to nuclear power, that we have wasted a lot of money on useless power sources does not in any way make an argument for continuing to pay for them.

Meanwhile we'll spend a decent amount of money on fusion research as well as research for space solar power (which actually would be useful, if we had the infrastructure to do it) since those two are the most likely alternatives to fission to actually end up working out (but right now only fission is available).

I'd cut out research on clean coal except for sequestration (which should be researched as a possibility for dealing with the CO2 we've already emitted, not as a way of allowing us to keep coal miners employed).

Research on alternative transportation fuels would also need to be done since we don't have an adequate replacement for oil yet.  Hydrogen production along with synthetic hydrocarbons (which will probably depend on hydrogen production) will need research as will better battery technology.

Of course we do need to keep our options open just in case some breakthrough that we aren't expecting happens and also just in case something we were planning on doing doesn't work out (with electricity we won't have to worry about fission not working out as that's already well proven but it's a problem with transportation fuels).

Answer 2

Let the free market do the job.

That isn't quite as simplistic as it sounds--but hear me out.

First, we need to establish a free market in energy production and conservation (efficiency). Right now we don't have that. Over decades the oil and coal industries have efffectively gained control of public policy and used this to erect barriers to entry by competitors.  This NOT free market capitalism. In fact, its the very thing Adam Smith warned against 230 years ago--allowing business to use the state to protect them from market competition.  

But would opening up the market work?  There is such a thing as "market failures"--situations in which market mechanisms don't effectively address a problem.  And, there are likely to be some--the whole idea of transitioning technology on this scale is far too complex to hope there would be no market failures.

But in the main, I think an open market would be the best rout. We already see a number of products, methods, and technologies that are either competitive or even superior, to older technology (example: CFLs).  The path of development makes it pretty clear that with in a few years solar power will be fully cost effective (right now its still borderline as far as overall cost goes).  It's been proved that electric cars can have adequate range and even outperform gas-powered vehicles. Recharging and battery cost are the two main barriers--and those are being solved, slowly but surely.

The potential for entrepreneurs and innovators to make fortunes creating and marketing the new technologies is enorrmous.

And the's a big fat icing on the cake: entrepreneurs, innovation, and new technology are what create new jobs and economic growth. NOT established large corporations.

Does the state have a role? Yes--in three areas:

>as "policeman" to make sure that the markets really are free and competitive, or at least reasonably so.

>supporting the type of basic research that is the starting point of new innovations but which private firms cannot normally do.

>acting to deal with situations where market failures do occur.

Answer 3

Nuclear.  That is the only one that works today and doesn't emit CO2.

Other alternatives (wind, solar, etc.) are not reliable and have a low energy density.  They require a huge amount of land for not a lot of energy production.

Answer 4

Of course this is the question of the century.

Some of my modest opinions:

solar photovoltaic cells on roofs and wind generators in windy areas can handle a great deal of the residential and commercial demand. You need incentives from the government to bring this about.

Coal burning for electricity is a big problem. I think distributed "smart" energy networks with local power production - fuel cells? Ultimately the energy must come from something like geothermal - you needn't be in Iceland for that - they can drill down thousands of feet and tap the Earth's heat in lots of places.

Transportation is going to go to plug-in hybrids and then to all-electric cars. Possibly fuel-cell powered. Surely we'll see a mix of that with batteries.

More public transportation, and alternatives to suburbia as a place to live - I mean, more people in areas served by trains and busses and more people staying at or near home all the time -- conservation will have to be a huge part of the puzzle.

Answer 5

Do we consider methane in the arctic, and likely to be released into the atmosphere as the arctic melts, to be an alternative fuel?

I mean, if it is a matter of use it or lose it, do we have a meaningful choice? Yes, any attempt to extract that far north methane will be met with a firestorm of environmental protest instigated by oil, coal and gas firms further south.  The complaints will all be about protecting fragile ecosystems which would be destroyed by escaping methane, by letting the methane escape naturally.

Arctic methane will only give us about 100 years more to get off other fossil fuels so as a transitioning strategy it is a stop-gap.  But failing to extract it does not appear to be a useful strategy.