eletricity versus oil energy

... Also, jets and airplanes wouldn't use electricity to propel themselves so we still need oilf for that right? ...

If we do not find a replacement for fossil fuels in the next decade you youngsters may live to witness the end of civilization as we know know it.

We likely have enough fossil fuels to last us a couple of centuries, it's just that using them will be expensive. It will certainly change the economy, but it won't be drastically different than what we have now.

If oil prices end up double or triple (or more) what they are now in a few decades due to lower supply, that'll open up vast new sources of oil for economic viability. Decades after that, if oil prices double or triple (or more) again, then we'll be converting our vast supply of coal to liquid fuel burnable in vehicles. This in turn will make coal use in power plants too expensive and make nuclear power the only viable large scale power source.

Will cars be powered by liquid hydrogen, lithium (or other) batteries or a synthetic liquid fossil fuel in 100 years? I'm not all that worried about these possibilities because I don't see the technical hurdles as being all that daunting. These are largely economic issues.

Those are your conservative beliefs. Others believe differently.

I do not like putting the our children's futures at risk simply because it is easy for us.

We need to wean ourselves from fossil fuels, the sooner the better.

To deny this is simply foolishness.

Putting your faith in the undiscovered resources is simply silly.

A much healthier belief system would be one which puts the development of alternative fuels on the front burner, NOW.

... Every second (and dollar) we spend pursuing ideas like solar power instead of building a new nuclear plant (for example) is a second (and dollar) wasted.

For transportation 2nd generation biofuels are the best stopgap until a cheap and clean source of electricity can be found to supply H2. They are made from parts of the crop that aren't eaten and are almost carbon neutral. Problem is, they are expensive to produce making them uncompetetive with crude based fuel....

TR: The hydrogen fuel-cell program has been scaled back in the proposed budget, and the emphasis has been changed from transportation to buildings.

SC: That's right.

TR: It used to be thought, five to eight years ago, that hydrogen was the great answer for the future of transportation. The mood has shifted. What have we learned from this?

SC: I think, well, among some people it hasn't really shifted [laughs]. I think there was great enthusiasm in some quarters, but I always was somewhat skeptical of it because, right now, the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas. That's not an ideal source of hydrogen. You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas, which is a very valuable fuel. So that's one problem. The other problem is, if it's for transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet. Compressed hydrogen is the best mechanism [but it requires] a large volume. We haven't figured out how to store it with high density. What else? The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet. So you have four things that have to happen all at once. And so it always looked like it was going to be [a technology for] the distant future. In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs. That makes it unlikely.

“We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no,’” Chu said in a briefing today. He cited several barriers, including infrastructure, development of long-lasting portable fuel cells and other problems.

Agreed, but since you did not feel the need to put a "these are my liberal beliefs, others believe differently" disclaimer on your post, I didn't see a reason to put a similar one on mine! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Agreed! Why not skip the development and go straight to the implimentation, since we have plenty of alternatives right now that can have a huge impact on the problem?

...btw, how does your position that we should work on development jive with your opinion that we shouldn't put faith in undiscovered resources? Instead of unidscovered resources, you're putting your faith in undiscovered technologies! Why I think my ideas are superior to most peoples' is that my ideas do not require undiscovered resources or technology for quite a while whereas most peoples ideas require undiscovered resources or technology right now. Every second (and dollar) we spend pursuing ideas like solar power instead of building a new nuclear plant (for example) is a second (and dollar) wasted.

Well whoever the fella is, I dont share his views. I am of course noone of authority but my views are scientific FACT!! :P...

He's a nobel laureate in physics and the US Secretary of Energy. Also, save your self some trouble and re-read the guidelines.

specifically regarding?

2) citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).

pwa:

2) Hydrogen. The big R&D is dead for now.

but a progressive switch to nuclear and (shudder) wind/solar etc will solve that in a jiffy

Why the hell is everyone always against wind and solar? Wind I can understand as it can be expensive but solar holds some serious promise. There have been some major advancements in solar technology in the past three years and I see no reason why it can not be our major source of energy.

Nothing could be further from the truth and your source doesn't even state that. Big R&D is as big as it has ever been. The government reduced spending in hydrogen R&D for infrastructure and vehicle development, but budgets for core development of hydrogen technologies has NOT been scaled back. Government sponsored research is still very active in the area of non-precious catalysts for fuel cells and fuel cell durability. I believe hydride research along with thermochemical and photochemical research is still being well funded as well although that is not my area. ...

Why the hell is everyone always against wind and solar? Wind I can understand as it can be expensive but solar holds some serious promise. There have been some major advancements in solar technology in the past three years and I see no reason why it can not be our major source of energy.