The answer is to gradually phase out of all fossil fuels including natural gases, coal, and oil. The replacement is controversial, but nuclear energy is the best bet. The US has roughly 100 nuclear reactors and make about 800 billion kWh of energy a year, for about 20% of the US' energy production (a TON of energy vs. how little space is occupied). Nuclear energy's biggest issue is lack of research which impacts safety and waste disposal, but those can be remedied.
I know a lot of people say we should move solely to sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectricity, but frankly, solar and wind take up a lot of space (and solar is damningly inefficient), and dams in excess destroy aquatic ecosystems, so nuclear energy with some help (e.g. thorium reactors) is the solution.
The problem is supply and demand. Our ability to supply fossil fuels will fall behind the demand for those fuels, at which point prices rise. Demand is definitely going to increase due to the developing world. Supply is definitely going to decrease as all our easily-accessible reserves run out.
The only solution we have at the moment is nuclear. Yes, we can build wind farms and solar panels and tidal generators. None of which can generate sufficient power continuously nor can they be built quickly enough. The only way we have of generating large amounts of power with little greenhouse emissions is nuclear. Nuclear, however, is flawed in the sense that the number we'd need to build is large and the commissioning takes a decade.
Natural gas will run out within the lifetime of the children currently in primary school.
Natural Gas is still a fossil fuel, as such it only last so long. Lets be generous, say 1000 or even 2,000 years. Meanwhile the Sun will keep shining for a million times more than that.
BTW, it still releases CO2, a greenhouse gas. I doubt we can afford to keep burning all the gas we have without more climate change.
It's a better solution than Coal, but a temporary one until we have nuclear fusion or widespread renewable (tide, wind, geothermal, solar, ocean thermal solar) developed.
Every now and then just out of the blue a house blows up from Natural gas. my thoughts were keeping NASA operational and visiting planets closer to earth to home stead if possible. Quanity of people can live and visit other planets to expand, so no one planet gets over populated, but I designed a future city that can handle an over sized population and still have natural wildlife still abundantly. as for food. I have a new solution that grows 12 to 15 times more foods than whats being grown now and i can sell each crop at 1979 food prices and everyone can actually feed their families better and live a prosperous life comfortable. (Food for thought= My Triple output solution turned off Global Warming in 2012). Mike
I agree with James but in the meantime natural gas is a great energy source as long as we realise it won't last forever, and get on with researching and developing safe environmentally friendly nuclear (it's possible it just needs motivation) however governments are only concerned about their next term in office, and seldom think of the future.
Well what other choice do we have? Go extinct? That seems to be what you are implying. If we run out of energy sources we must find new ones or we die its that simple
yes
As for what I heard, the population on Earth continues to rise from 6 billion people to few more. And the wind mills doesn't get enough wind along the natural recourses becomes limited. Some of the scientists believe that Natural Gas is the only solution. I'm not certain if it's a great idea but what do you think?
