[sicophiliac]

What is the most viable energy source beyond oil. Most doomers on here would argue they are all doomed.. can never replace oil and were all going to either die off or revert back to riding horses and living preindustrial life styles. But if you had to make a bet on which one would replace oil as an energy source what would it be? I personally am leaning towards solar thermal myself.. given the vast amount of energy available from the sun that shines consistently in the arid regions of the globe. Plus the fact that base load power from the plants can be had by storing the heated liquids in tanks overnight. Other than that I would say wind next, given its already cheap but not too reliable.. then algae based biofuels long term look promising for a variety of reasons so let me see what you guys think.

[peak]

Why isn't coal up there?

EDIT: I see it now.

[kpeavey]

What is the most viable energy source?

The sun

[SolarDave]

<<< ---------------- You left one out! And I woudl have voted for it!

[MonteQuest]

The American standard of living.

[MonteQuest]

Or conservation.

[smallpoxgirl]

Many of those are viable energy sources. None of them is a direct replacement for oil. The solution is a mix of all of those along with a mega-dose of using less.

[cube]

how did nuclear fusion get on the list?

you've all heard the joke: It's the energy source of the future.....always has been always will be.

[cipi604]

Fusion, they are clueless about a lot of problems regarding sustainability of continuous burning... so it's far far away from happening soon enough, but solar or I hope algae... that's pretty doable. Our industry will shrink no matter what alternatives we have.

[sicophiliac]

how did nuclear fusion get on the list?

you've all heard the joke: It's the energy source of the future.....always has been always will be.

Thats kind of why I threw it in there.. its been given such a reputation as the techno fix sort of star trek world future power source.

[skyemoor]

There will no one solution, but a combination of many (wind, solar, geothermal, etc).

[Dezakin]

Short term: coal
Medium Long term (50-200 years out): Nuclear fission
Very long term (100 years and further): Solar and nuclear fusion

Not sure how you neglected nuclear fisson.

[ekaggata]

I would have written everything Dezakin just wrote, had he not written it already.

With respect to coal, it's not a question of if, it's a question of "a lot more" or "a humungously large amount more"?

There is one more thing I'd like to add: I think "What is the most viable transportation energy source" is a more apposite/pertinent question for humanity right now. CTL following in crude's wake seems the only likely candidate, because biofuels of all types (even algae) seem insufficient and electrical or fuel cell just seem to be too slow to develop technologically. But I admit I don't know enough about this area to judge.

[patience]

I think Smallpoxgirl and skyemoor are right, that a combination is what is needed. One source can't come close to doing it all. And without using a LOT less energy, we have had it.

I voted for coal/biomass, not because I want that, but because I think that is easiest and thus will be what happens, right after we have a major crisis and the populace squeals like a bunch of pigs for more cheap energy.

[VMarcHart]

"What is the most viable energy source beyond oil" ... to perpetuate the over-shooting? N/A.