First off, thanks to Thunderfall for taking me up on my awesome idea! :thanx:

So anyway, what do you guys think will be the dominant fuels for...

A : electricity production?
B : transportation?
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.

Happy February! :snowlaugh:

Electricity production will be a combination of solar and nuclear. We'll have a thorium cycle up and running by then. We'll still have coal, of course, but it'll be kinda embarrassing to be using it by then.

Transportation will be electrical, mostly.

First off, thanks to Thunderfall for taking me up on my awesome idea! :thanx:

So anyway, what do you guys think will be the dominant fuels for...

A : electricity production?
My guess would be mostly nuclear and solar, with some wind and hydro as well as coal.
B : transportation?
Electrical
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.
My guess would be more synthetics, but not many major differences.

A: Fusion perhaps, PBMR + Transmutation nuclear, microwave (solar from satellites)

B: Electric or hydrogen as energy storing. Synthetic hydrocarbons perhaps in some cases

C: Carbon-based nanostructures, composites and metals, specifically designed biomaterials and bio-imitating materials

First off, thanks to Thunderfall for taking me up on my awesome idea! :thanx:

So anyway, what do you guys think will be the dominant fuels for...

A : electricity production?
B : transportation?
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.

Happy February! :snowlaugh:

A: Nuclear for big cities and wind. hydro and solar satellites for the rest

B: depens on what do you mean for trasportation: probable spacecraft will use nuclear instead cars will use electric

C: I agree with zxcvbnm

B: depens on what do you mean for trasportation: probable spacecraft will use nuclear instead cars will use electric

What sort of nuclear do you have in mind? A reactor powering a vehicle tends to be heavy, especially when shielding is taken into account. The Soviet Union experimented with nuclear-powered aircraft, but abandoned the idea as it wasn't particularly practical.

For all I know, the United States did the same.

Now, if you mean RTGs, there would still be a considerable amount of shielding involved, but they run themselves. That being the case, though, we need to come up with some more plutonium... which is doable.

What sort of nuclear do you have in mind? A reactor powering a vehicle tends to be heavy, especially when shielding is taken into account. The Soviet Union experimented with nuclear-powered aircraft, but abandoned the idea as it wasn't particularly practical.

For all I know, the United States did the same.

Now, if you mean RTGs, there would still be a considerable amount of shielding involved, but they run themselves. That being the case, though, we need to come up with some more plutonium... which is doable.

I mean anti-matter/matter reactor. It's light, powerful and doesn't produce radiactions. Perfect but we will have it in a far future

I mean anti-matter/matter reactor. It's light, powerful and doesn't produce radiactions. Perfect but we will have it in a far future

Anti-matter isn't really a source of power, as it takes at least as much energy to create it as is produced on annihilation. It would be a very powerful method of storing energy, rather than producing it.

Also it produces a fair bit of gamma-rays, so its not exactly clean either ;).

Anti-matter isn't really a source of power, as it takes at least as much energy to create it as is produced on annihilation. It would be a very powerful method of storing energy, rather than producing it.

Also it produces a fair bit of gamma-rays, so its not exactly clean either ;).

Except if it's towed from outer space, where it exists (c'mon, it must be somewhere). Ships can be powered with their cargo and it would make a lot of energy down here. Just need FTL or warp drive.

Except if it's towed from outer space, where it exists (c'mon, it must be somewhere). Ships can be powered with their cargo and it would make a lot of energy down here. Just need FTL or warp drive.

How do you store anti-matter?

;)

Anti-matter isn't really a source of power, as it takes at least as much energy to create it as is produced on annihilation. It would be a very powerful method of storing energy, rather than producing it.

Also it produces a fair bit of gamma-rays, so its not exactly clean either ;).

you've exactly what i had said before :rolleyes:
We will use antimatter only to trasport energy on spaceships not to produce it for the cities

For the gamma-rays we will create somthing to trasform them in energy ;)

How do you store anti-matter?

;)

With electromagnetic cells

Solar and Electricity.

How do you store anti-matter?

;)

In a flux-capacitor.

How do you store anti-matter?

;)In an electrically charged box. You don't use actual anti-matter, only anti-helium nuclei. Give the box a negative charge and the anti-matter will stay inside.

Everything I have read on anti-matter, it costs as much energy to produce as we will get out of it. Perhaps that will change in the future, but for now anti-matter looks like an unviable option. I vote for solar, and hydrogen (only the most common element in the universe)


Except if it's towed from outer space, where it exists (c'mon, it must be somewhere). Ships can be powered with their cargo and it would make a lot of energy down here. Just need FTL or warp drive.

Based on cosmic ray studies, they are overwhelmingly matter, which is unusual, because whenever a particle is created, the anti-particle is created as well. This strongly suggests the universe is mostly matter, and not anti-matter. Why, is the big mystery.

I think it will be in waves, that last as long as the reservoirs.

Oil will probably lose popularity within 50 years, and largely be replaced by coal
I expect natural gas will gain in popularity a short while, but be depleted fast and lose popularity as fast as oil.

I'm betting a combination of nuclear energy, hydrogen, and cellulosic ethanol will gain popularity as coal becomes depleted in a couple of centuries, and possibly sooner if their utility improves greatly.

Solar and windfarms are a long-shot I believe, but will grow steadily.

Anyway for Transportation----oil will dominate until hydrogen is made safe. Lightweight hybrid electric automobiles will become standard for private ownership, and probably the average size of them will shrink to similar to Euro-size.

For general electricity----I'd bet coal and nuclear will duel it out; Not sure who will win, but I think nuclear will win. I'd expect that electrical bills will get more expensive, though, and lots of private uses will move to public (e.g. internet cafes). Bigger is better will be out except for public businesses.

For manufacturing, I think anything but oil and natural gas will be used.

Here in Arizona, solar is becoming very real, very popular, very fast. The two major utility companies offer generous rebates or credits if your home generates more electricity than it needs. Solar panels are still expensive for now though.

How do you store anti-matter?

It's impossible to store anti-matter, since the storage must be matter, and anti-matter and matter destroys each other.

It's impossible to store anti-matter, since the storage must be matter, and anti-matter and matter destroys each other.
See above. Simple electrostatics.

Go juice made from the people who didn't make it...

Looks like fusion may be out.

Fusion falters under soaring costs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103557.stm)

Some scientists also believe that the technical hurdles to fusion have become more difficult to overcome and that the development of fusion as a commercial power source is still at least 100 years away.

Dr Holtkamp recognises that Iter is a scientific experiment - and as such it has the possibility of failure.

"Any project can fail, especially if it's one of a kind or the first of its kind. It would be irresponsible for any scientist or project manager to say that in a science project it cannot fail."

Looks like fusion may be out.

Fusion falters under soaring costs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8103557.stm)

Sounds like ITER is fast becoming a failed construction project.

If fusion is out I think that safely means that alternative energy projects (biological,solar,wind,wave) will have greater value now.

First off, thanks to Thunderfall for taking me up on my awesome idea! :thanx:

So anyway, what do you guys think will be the dominant fuels for...

A : electricity production?
B : transportation?
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.

Happy February! :snowlaugh:

a) combination of different power sources, considering that many will be only cost-effective in different regions. For example:

coastal cities and regions use wind and tidal power; solar power becomes dominant in areas such as the American west, mediterranean, north africa, etc; nuclear power fills in the rest.

b) I think that as soon as we master nuclear fusion (I would like to believe it's a when, not an if question), we'll work on making the size of a fusion plant smaller and smaller through successive breakthroughs. However, it'll probably be centuries before we tap that. In the here and now, ultra-efficient gasoline/diesel engines (50 mpg or greater is the minimum standard), hybrids, and/or plug-and-go.

c) I'm thinking more composites based on nanotechnology, wider access to hemp and other such fabrics, but really more of the same.

A) I agree with Gooblah, wind & tidal on the coast, solar in mainland areas. It's possible some new innovations may be able to harvest energy from sources we haven't really considered, such as jetstream winds.

B) Electricity. Assuming we have sufficient breakthroughs as far as battery capacity and conductivity go(eliminating the short drive time and long recharge time), electric cars will become the only cars. Given 100 years, that shouldn't be hard to do(look at the breakthroughs we made in the last 10).

C) Synthetics will probably be more ecological-friendly, at least to the point where all or most synthetics will be biodegradable. This means making things out of other things such as hemp fibers, starch plastics, etc.

Two other points I will bring up:

1) One thing I am against is corn ethanol. This is a waste of time and money. When corn is grown for ethanol consumption, it sucks up nutrients out of the soil. Then they replace those nutrients with artificial fertilizers. What are artificial fertilizers made out of? Oil. What is the point of paying billions in subsidies to farmers if all they're doing is turning oil into oil?

2) As far as mankind's knowledge goes, in the future(they very distant future, that is) antimatter reactors will be the ultimate form of energy. Antimatter reactions produce about 10,000 times more energy than nuclear reactions(though only about half of that can be used. Still, that's a lot of energy). A single kilogram can produce nearly as much energy as was released when the Russians exploded the Tsar Bomba. The best part is antimatter reactions leave no radioactive waste, a major problem with nuclear energy. The problem is we have no idea how to either produce antimatter cheaply enough to be viable, or how to safely contain and harvest the energy from these reactions.

See above. Simple electrostatics.

You cannot store a significant amount of antimatter that way. With only one nucleus it would be easy, but if you have more nuclei the same "simple electrostatics" would cause them to repell each other and the nuclei would escape the box over time.

And we would need to get way more efficient in antimatter production if we ever want to use it as fuel. At the moment it costs a million times more energy to produce it than we would get out of the annihilation. And I don't think we'll get much better anytime soon.

1) One thing I am against is corn ethanol. This is a waste of time and money. When corn is grown for ethanol consumption, it sucks up nutrients out of the soil. Then they replace those nutrients with artificial fertilizers. What are artificial fertilizers made out of? Oil. What is the point of paying billions in subsidies to farmers if all they're doing is turning oil into oil?



At this point corn ethanol having hidden, non-renewable costs isn't news. That doesn't completely rule out biological science contributing to the search for renewable energy.


Both Fusion and Antimatter sound wonderful, but antimatter, at least, doesn't seem practical by the thread limit of 2100.

I hope it's plug-in electric cars. Powered by nuclear fusion, solar collectors, wind farms, and geothermal plants. A lot can happen in 90 years, if government and industry make the right decisions.

We'll use He3 powered fusion as a mainstay (why we are headed back to the Moon, btw).

Doubt we'll use solar except for novel purposes.

Wind is kind of limited by the fact that if you want to really power the planet with it, you risk screwing with weather patterns, albeit on a local scale. Don't expect any good-sized chunk of our powergrid from wind.

Tidal power, well, similar problem to wind, however you can provide far more power. Also there are other ways like geothermal power, boreholes, etc.

Coal will still be around, but refined into diesel and gas/petrol and used in hybrid vehicles and jet engines for the most part.

Oil's been dead for 60 years.

Natural Gas has been gone for 30 years.

Methyl Hydrates, well, they'll be legislated out of use.

I figure a few singularities might be, well, whatever you call it when we make a micro-black hole to be used for power purposes, or hyperengines, or time travel. You mentioned 2100, not 2050.

But we'll still have B-52s, if anything!!!

1stcontact2035

Why would wind farms affect weather systems significantly? :confused:

Why would wind farms affect weather systems significantly? :confused:

Apparently there is concern they can: http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2005/1012-wind_farms_impacting_weather.htm


But the researchers found that in the predawn hours, when the atmosphere is less turbulent, a large windmill array could influence the local climate, raising temperatures by about 2 degrees Celsius (about 4 Fahrenheit) for several hours. The rotating blades could also redirect high-speed winds down to the Earth's surface, boosting evaporation of soil moisture.

I see. Looks like mountainous terrain or the littoral zone are the only guaranteed wind farm locations.

I see. Looks like mountainous terrain or the littoral zone are the only guaranteed wind farm locations.

Seaside cliffs FTW!!! :)



Though it might also give an interesting way for a slow draining of swamps....by evaporation.

Well, they shouldn't be in or near wetlands. Anyway, I actually meant offshore, not littoral, though wind farms on windy seaside cliffs aren't a bad idea.

I think we'll be 90% solar by then. What we lack right now is a system of integrating solar energy collectors with some type of grid. But once that takes off, it's going to take off a la Moore's Law.

Fusion will have its place. I'd hope fission will be rarely used, and viewed as ecologically costly

I imagine that very efficient fusion would be less environmentaly damaging than producing all the chemicals needed for solar panels. But hey, who knows what's going to happen in 100 years? It may be that machines have 'evolved' so that they don't need to be plugged in to anything but generate their own energy by extracting heat from their surroundings, or from the sun's neutrino flux or something even more crazy.

It may be that machines have 'evolved' so that they don't need to be plugged in to anything but generate their own energy by extracting heat from their surroundings

Yeah, 100 yers should be enough time to finally abolish that stupid second law of thermodynamics. It has really been holding us back all these years.

Yeah, 100 yers should be enough time to finally abolish that stupid second law of thermodynamics. It has really been holding us back all these years.

I could see a kind of maxwell's deamon being engineered using nanotechnology. Would that not violate the second law?

I don't think anyone here has quite an understanding of the difficulties of changing manufacturing process. The sheer scale and amount of research required to make new synthetic pathways to mass produced bulk commodities makes it so impractical (and in some cases impossible) such that the manufactoring prosesses aren't going to change and will keep on using the same raw materials.

I could see a kind of maxwell's deamon being engineered using nanotechnology. Would that not violate the second law?

That would violate the second law. Any machine generating energy from heat without a place to dump extra heat violates that. The general consensus is, that even Maxwell's daemon wouldn't be able to do that.

Such a machine would be the holy grail of physics, but many have tried and all have failed. To quote Arthur Eddington:

If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.


Nanotechnology can do quite awesome stuff, but breaking the second law of thermodynamics? That's asking too much.

I don't think anyone here has quite an understanding of the difficulties of changing manufacturing process. The sheer scale and amount of research required to make new synthetic pathways to mass produced bulk commodities makes it so impractical (and in some cases impossible) such that the manufactoring prosesses aren't going to change and will keep on using the same raw materials.

Huh? We're talking about 90 years worth of development here. 90 years ago was before our modern mass production begun. There is certainly enough time to switch manufacturing processes until then. 90 years ago, noone really would have guessed the rise of plastics. And the whole semicondutor industry is even younger.


There might be not much need for it, because most modern raw materials are either pretty abundant or can be manufactured with enough energy (like oil). So it would only become more expensive, if cheap oil runs out.

The only thing I am worried about are rare metals (e.g. Indium) and helium. I think we will see severe shortages of them during the next century.

Huh? We're talking about 90 years worth of development here. 90 years ago was before our modern mass production begun. There is certainly enough time to switch manufacturing processes until then. 90 years ago, noone really would have guessed the rise of plastics. And the whole semicondutor industry is even younger.


There might be not much need for it, because most modern raw materials are either pretty abundant or can be manufactured with enough energy (like oil). So it would only become more expensive, if cheap oil runs out.

The only thing I am worried about are rare metals (e.g. Indium) and helium. I think we will see severe shortages of them during the next century.

Not really; look at synthetic fibres, polyurethanes and what not; you still need to make the diols, diisocyanates, diamines, and research into the processes and bulk materials isn't happening. Our knowledge of certain, simple processes is not increasing, and there isn't any reason for it to increase in 90 years. Where they are made from regrowable media there is no reason to improve them (look at the synthesis of H2SO4, HNO3 or nylon for instance).

Rare metals will have to be recycled, and always should be just becuase they cost so much anyway (Rhodium for example is so expensive it should always be reclaimed, because the cost of reclaimation is less than the cost of replacement).

I'm not arguing about mass production, I'm arguing more about the basic chemical methods used in making bulk materials.

That would violate the second law. Any machine generating energy from heat without a place to dump extra heat violates that. The general consensus is, that even Maxwell's daemon wouldn't be able to do that.

Such a machine would be the holy grail of physics, but many have tried and all have failed. To quote Arthur Eddington:


Nanotechnology can do quite awesome stuff, but breaking the second law of thermodynamics? That's asking too much.

Indeed, it would beak the second law, but I'm afraid that I disagree with Eddington. There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevent a gate opening and closing at exactly the right speed to filter the fast and slow particles of the gas. That is merely a engineering, technical, problem - science does not say that it is impossible. It is common sense that it is theoretical possible. Perhaps 90 years is not long enough to develop the technology to do so.
But here is a method that could work.

Have two closed chambers completely separated from each other apart from a small 'corridor'. This corridor is very narrow and about x metres long. At either end of the corridor is a small gate that can open and close very quickly. A gas is pumped into one of the chambers and is left to settle slightly. Then the gate closer to it opens for a tiny amount of time and then closes again. A split second later, the over gate does the same. What does that do? It means that only the faster molecules have time to reach the second gate and enter the 'hot' chamber. However, the hot molecules from the hot chamber wont be able to escape back into the cold chamber and will remain trapped in the middle. Repeat enough times and there should be a slight difference in the temperatures of the two chambers.

Its not perfectly efficient but it could be improved by having a third chamber linked to the middle of the corridor by a gate. The chamber would be much larger than the others and would be used to empty out the corridor and create a near vacuum to get rid of the mixture of fast and cold particles stuck in it.

Now, tell me, where in science is this kind of apparatus forbidden?

Wouldn't the molecules just impart their heat energy to the chamber, heating it up? This would conduct the heat back to the cooler gas molecules.

The containers could be perfect (or 99.9999% perfect) thermos flask and as such radiate heat out so slowly that as long as the process is done in a few minutes or even hours it does not matter. True, we are far away from doing this at the moment, but who can say what we can do in 90 years time?

An even better way of generating energy would be to harness the neutrino flux coming from the Sun. It carries about as much energy as the suns photons, but is much much harder to detect and transform energy. But still, as neutrinos are not affected by weather or even the Earth itself it would be like a solar panel that works 24/7 no matter what the weather and indoors as well as outdoors.

Indeed, it would break the second law, but I'm afraid that I disagree with Eddington. There is nothing in the laws of physics that prevent a gate opening and closing at exactly the right speed to filter the fast and slow particles of the gas.


Do you see the irony?


Now, tell me, where in science is this kind of apparatus forbidden?

Your first proposal doesn't work, because the corridor would be filled with fast and slow particles. The slow particles might not make it through during the first run, but there is nothing stopping them during the next runs. And how would you trap the particles in the middle of the second chamber? There isn't really anything preventing them to get back into the corridor.

Your second proposal doesn't work, because it requires a large amount of work to create a near vacuum (Those vacuum pumps are THE source of annoying noise in most physics labs). If you put in that much work into cooling one chamber, you could have used a refridgerator instead.


An even better way of generating energy would be to harness the neutrino flux coming from the Sun. It carries about as much energy as the suns photons, but is much much harder to detect and transform energy. But still, as neutrinos are not affected by weather or even the Earth itself it would be like a solar panel that works 24/7 no matter what the weather and indoors as well as outdoors.


That's certainly a better idea. It just would require some kind of material with an extremely enhanced the cross section of neutrinos. If there is such a thing (considering the properties of the weak interaction I doubt it), and we are lucky to find it, our energy problems would be solved for as long as the sun shines. However that depends on a really lucky break.

A : electricity production?
- Nuclear and Hydro as the primary producers, with Coal, Tidal Power and Solar Power as secondary producers. Wind Power is relegated to laughing stock.
B : transportation?
- Bio-fuels, mainly from sugar cane.
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.
- That I don't know, but carbon nanotubes will surely be a part of it.

I disagree with hydro power being significant. There are only so many rivers in the world, and some are drying up.

I wouldn't laugh at wind power either. It's a growth industry.

90 years?

Hopefully fusion by then.
A much more efficient way of exploiting solar energy isn't too unreasonable either.

Indeed. Solar energy satellites for the win.

Neutrino capture, if possible, would be the most practical way of collecting solar energy, as it works during the night, indoors and outdoors and no matter what the weather is.

Neutrino capture, if possible, would be the most practical way of collecting solar energy, as it works during the night, indoors and outdoors and no matter what the weather is.

But even if it's always on, is it the most efficient?

Well I guess that depends on the efficiency of the panels. I guess I meant practical or reliable rather than efficient.

Well what I'm wondering is, isn't a neutrino collector one of those---build a water tank in an underground, abandoned mine could of set-ups? E.g. Sudbury. Or like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5qS9Beo6x4&feature=PlayList&p=8702607AF621AFF2&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17.

Is there a practical rooftop panel for collecting neutrinos and converting to electrical energy?

No, there isnt a mechanism to turn them into energy, or even a proposal for how this could be done. But the point is that 90 years is a very long time in science and technology, and that even the wildest speculation may end up being right.

Sometimes the best energy source is the simpler ones...

Solar energy for electricity. Biofuels, electricity or hydrogen for transportation.

Australia is starting to head in the direction of solar power, which would be good, and ethanol (because it supports Australian farmers) which would be bad, considering rising world populations. Hydrogen cell cars will probably become more common, along with a combination of any number of renewable energy/long-lasting energy generation methods (probably mostly solar, nuclear and hydro (China, Brazil, Egypt will be pretty big consumers)).

Australia is starting to head in the direction of solar power, which would be good, and ethanol (because it supports Australian farmers) which would be bad, considering rising world populations. Hydrogen cell cars will probably become more common, along with a combination of any number of renewable energy/long-lasting energy generation methods (probably mostly solar, nuclear and hydro (China, Brazil, Egypt will be pretty big consumers)).

Ethanol really does not use as much land as is usually thought. Brazil managed to run almost every car in the country using less 1% of its agricultural land on biofuel production. There is a difference between the Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and the US corn ethanol, the latter being vastly more inefficient. Of course biofuels alone won't be able to support growing fuel demands.

Ethanol really does not use as much land as is usually thought. Brazil managed to run almost every car in the country using less 1% of its agricultural land on biofuel production. There is a difference between the Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and the US corn ethanol, the latter being vastly more inefficient. Of course biofuels alone won't be able to support growing fuel demands.

Yep. Interestingly, there may be better ethanol crops that the USA could grow in Florida (and not just sugarcane). Not to mention the very alternative methods of generating ethanol through algae or other biological systems.

Why do people keep suggesting hydrogen as a fuel? I don't really like the idea. It requires considerable energy and equipment to transport it, and creating such a system would require a vast rebuilding of the current energy infrastructure. It just seems so expensive compared to the alternatives.

A : electricity production?
B : transportation?
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.



A: Wind, Solar, Geothermal, Hydropower, etc mix, I believe we will see Geothermal being a dominant component of Energy

B: probably batteries using energy listed in A or tracks transmitting power

C: probably made from petroleum derived from algae

these are all contingent on us not getting to "Zero minutes to Midnight"

Why do people keep suggesting hydrogen as a fuel? I don't really like the idea. It requires considerable energy and equipment to transport it, and creating such a system would require a vast rebuilding of the current energy infrastructure. It just seems so expensive compared to the alternatives.

California has committed itself to the idea which is why it's popular I believe.

California has committed itself to the idea which is why it's popular I believe.

that reminds me, I need to shoot the governator, he didn't manage to get rid of inefficiences but he managed to terminate the lovely state of California

Ethanol really does not use as much land as is usually thought. Brazil managed to run almost every car in the country using less 1% of its agricultural land on biofuel production. There is a difference between the Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and the US corn ethanol, the latter being vastly more inefficient. Of course biofuels alone won't be able to support growing fuel demands.

But given the relative demand from food crops and fuel (in terms of price, not need), a lot of farmers are willing to substitute their food crops for fuel crops. Now, keeping in mind that certainly not all agricultural land is used to produce food crops/possible fuel crops, or is suitable to grow such crops, the substitution from one to another has a greater effect than figures such as '1% of land used' would suggest. And even if we assume that only 1% of food crops in the world were transformed to fuel crops (which is an underestimation for a fuel that supplies all fuel needs in a growing world economy), that would mean that 1% of people in the world would not be able to be fed (generalising). Those almost 70 000 000 people will suffer from the use of staple crops/land that could be used for staple crops, for fuel production, making it not really the best option.

On the plus side, a lower population will reduce the need for fuel. ;)

But given the relative demand from food crops and fuel (in terms of price, not need), a lot of farmers are willing to substitute their food crops for fuel crops. Now, keeping in mind that certainly not all agricultural land is used to produce food crops/possible fuel crops, or is suitable to grow such crops, the substitution from one to another has a greater effect than figures such as '1% of land used' would suggest. And even if we assume that only 1% of food crops in the world were transformed to fuel crops (which is an underestimation for a fuel that supplies all fuel needs in a growing world economy), that would mean that 1% of people in the world would not be able to be fed (generalising). Those almost 70 000 000 people will suffer from the use of staple crops/land that could be used for staple crops, for fuel production, making it not really the best option.

On the plus side, a lower population will reduce the need for fuel. ;)

On the other hand, this is just about the population growth rate of the earth, so converting 1% of agricultural land to biofuel use, would only advance that problem by one year.

That said, Brazil has a very low population density (Wikipedia ranks it at place 189) and I doubt that car ownership is as high as in America or Europe. So 1% of the land certainly wouldn't suffice to meet the world's fuel demand. (not to mention that it's rather hard to grow sugar cane in Europe)

The problem with food is, that demand is quite inelastic and only a slight decrease in supply can make huge price swings. So you have to be very careful trying to convert to biofuel.

Everything we currently have at our disposal, if they haven't yet been depleted, along with whatever human ingenuity comes up with by that time.

Electricity

Mainly wind, some geothermal, solar and tidal.

Transport

Land

Feet (walking and bicycles).
Some synthetic fuel (ethanol)
Some advanced steam (wood, powering sterling engines)
Some electric trams and trains.
Some plug-in and battery electric delivery vehicles.

Sea

Wind assisted by nuclear tugs and synthetic fuel.

Air

Hydrogen.

Heating

Nuclear, Wood and Solar


Manuafacturing Materials

A veritable mix.

So what about the depletion of fissionable nuclear fuel? Is that expected to occur by 2100?

So what about the depletion of fissionable nuclear fuel? Is that expected to occur by 2100?

No.

If you want to build fast breeder reactors, there will be enough uranium for a very long time. They do have disadvantages to normal reactors, though.

Then nobody has really been actively searching for uranium recently. The known reserves would probably increase significantly if the uranium price increased and people started searching for it.

Another point is, that the fuel is only a small part of the costs for nuclear reactors. Together with the fact, that energy prices will probably increase, this could make even very inefficient sources attractive (e.g. filtering uranium from sea water)

Finally, there is research ongoing to build reactors running on thorium. And there is much more thorium than uranium around.

What major fuel(s) will the world be using for energy in 2100?

Human grease?

No.

If you want to build fast breeder reactors, there will be enough uranium for a very long time. They do have disadvantages to normal reactors, though.

Then nobody has really been actively searching for uranium recently. The known reserves would probably increase significantly if the uranium price increased and people started searching for it.

Another point is, that the fuel is only a small part of the costs for nuclear reactors. Together with the fact, that energy prices will probably increase, this could make even very inefficient sources attractive (e.g. filtering uranium from sea water)

Finally, there is research ongoing to build reactors running on thorium. And there is much more thorium than uranium around.

I was more concerned about reading how about only 0.75% of all uranium is a fissionable isotope. So what are 'fast breeder reactors'---I know the breeders take unfissionable uranium and turn it into a fissionable element (Polonium?, I can't recall), but would they be a nearly infinite source of efficient nuclear fission?

I was more concerned about reading how about only 0.75% of all uranium is a fissionable isotope.


True, but that's already considered in all these "how long will uranium last" calculations.


So what are 'fast breeder reactors'---I know the breeders take unfissionable uranium and turn it into a fissionable element (Polonium?, I can't recall), but would they be a nearly infinite source of efficient nuclear fission?

It's plutonium instead of polonium, but yes, breeders do work like that. "Fast breeder" just refers to a type of breeder, "fast" meaning that it uses fast neutrons to make plutonium from uranium. As the supply of unfissionable uranium is not unlimited either, there is a limit how long this type of reactors could be used, but at current consumption this limit would be thousands of years, so it's nothing we have to worry about.

First off, thanks to Thunderfall for taking me up on my awesome idea! :thanx:

So anyway, what do you guys think will be the dominant fuels for...

A : electricity production?
B : transportation?
C : manufacturing? - what will stuff be made out from? For example today one could answer : plastic & other synthetic chemicals, wood, cotton, metals; in the future perhaps hemp & some new synthetics will be used to make plastics & perhaps other products such as clothing & paper.

Happy February! :snowlaugh:

I prefer "Power Source" instead of "Eletricity Production". It's possible that there could be a new form of power source, like some sort of plasma.

Now, before I say "Wood", "Horse", and "Hard Labor"... :p


A: Power Source - Maybe a combination of wind, solar (both aren't always reliable - solar won't work at night, or very well on a cloudy day), hydro (won't work if a river were to dry up or change course) and thermal. Thermal's probably the best bet for being the most reliable.

As for electric cars, there's one problem... you need to plug the cars in, which means you'll be using more power from the power plants. True, you won't be using gas, but that means more power plants, more maintainance and power plants will need to be replaced more frequently. Sure you could put it in at night, but many people have more than 1 car, and may leave it plugged in all day. Just imagine an entire city doing that. And you're obviously not going to have solar or wind powered cars.

http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wind-powered-car.jpg
:p

Also, from a blog (http://processliberation.org/) on resources - (a map from "New Scientist" I think)

The Amount of Resources Left in the Earth: (I'm assuming this means economically feasible resources. Technically, the earth's core is solid iron, but there's no way you're gonna get that any time soon.) The image shows the current and potential (that is, if all nations consumed resources at 1/2 the US rate, which assumes rapid development) depletion rate. I think that, given countries like China, India, and Brazil (even Russia again in a decade or two), are starting to attain World Power status, the depletion rate might be a bit quicker (i.e., copper might be more like 50 years instead of 61).

(spoiler tag for a super-large image)
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg

According to this, copper runs out this century. There've already been copper thieves (one stole the copper rainspout from our church recently! :dubious: :wow:)

Gold also runs out this century (used for electronics and space technology).

Lead runs out (not that it's exactly the healthiest element out there... then again, we drank out of lead pipes in school and turned out just fine. :p).

Nickle runs out. (Used in batteries)

Silver runs out.

Tin runs out.

Uranium (nuclear power!) - Up to 59 years left. They'll have to start converting nukes into power (talk about turning swords into ploughshares!). Uranium, and a few others, are also listed has having 0% recyclability, for obvious reasons. So, I don't think nuclear power will be a power source for too long, unless Breeder Reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) are used (not sure why they were banned).

Zinc runs out.

Antimony (medical drugs) runs out.

Coal - Not listed, but I've seen anywhere from 200-400 years left.
Oil - Also not listed, but I've seen anywhere from 25-40 years left, but with oil in the carribean, off of Brazil, and the North Pole, it could be 100 years.


B - Transportation - Probably cars, but if oil gets too expensive (and physcologically, I don't think people would be thrilled about having a "nuke in the tank" - just imagine all of the Snopes urban legend articles that would generate!), then bikes, animals, or walking. Currently, there's only a few million horses in the US (many in the mid-atlantic, and in the Great Plains), and half as many donkeys, mules, and llamas (yes, there are llama carts (http://www.hawknet.ca/serenity/kim3.jpg)).

I do not see flying cars, since there's just too many issues, like chain reaction mid-air collisions, a flying car running out of fuel in flight, 50,000 flying cars vying for a parking spot at a stadium at once. That's assuming that they're atleast computer controlled. How would police deal with a flying car chase, too?

C - Manufacturing - Don't know. I think that's kind of broad. You'll still have cotten, wool, iron (and steel). But, with depleting resources (or increasing costs), carbon nanotube based objects might help out a bit.

Also, in regards to resource manufacturing and mining, I don't think we'll be mining space asteroids any time soon. Yes, there's the Space Elevator project (which costs maybe half of most nation's GDP), but such an elevator would be SLOW (22,000+ miles would take a few weeks). Plus, there's legal and political implications. Who gets the resource? What about corporate monopolies? I could see wars fought over these things (and someone's bound to use an asteroid as a weapon). Secondly, how do you mine it? Do you bring it into orbit? Do you send a robotic space craft out to mine it? Mine it on-site in orbit? Things like solving lack of gravity and radiation would have to be done first, much less having some sort of manufacturing colony in space already.



One interesting point of note with regards to declining resources. Back in 1500BC-1200BC, the Middle East faced the same problem with depleting tin. That meant an increase in the cost of bronze (swords, farming tools - and thus, the cost of grain went up - hyper-inflation?). That caused the region to descend into a Dark Ages. I was reading a book on Google (http://books.google.com/books?id=YmtN6zr_hroC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Dark+Ages+2200BC&source=bl&ots=CN3DU_cVF4&sig=Rq72GWjArFoSQ9YuTQ8XDi60v-E&hl=en&ei=521PSsi8GNSLtgew27CyBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1) about different periods of Dark Ages -

2200BC - 1700BC: Caused by climate change (volcanos I think).
(approx.) 1200BC - 700BC: Declining resources.
500AD - 1000AD: Mass Migration (caused essentially by a unified China pushing west)

I prefer "Power Source" instead of "Eletricity Production". It's possible that there could be a new form of power source, like some sort of plasma.

Now, before I say "Wood", "Horse", and "Hard Labor"... :p


A: Power Source - Maybe a combination of wind, solar (both aren't always reliable - solar won't work at night, or very well on a cloudy day), hydro (won't work if a river were to dry up or change course) and thermal. Thermal's probably the best bet for being the most reliable.

As for electric cars, there's one problem... you need to plug the cars in, which means you'll be using more power from the power plants. True, you won't be using gas, but that means more power plants, more maintainance and power plants will need to be replaced more frequently. Sure you could put it in at night, but many people have more than 1 car, and may leave it plugged in all day. Just imagine an entire city doing that. And you're obviously not going to have solar or wind powered cars.

http://www.mywindpowersystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wind-powered-car.jpg
:p

Also, from a blog (http://processliberation.org/) on resources - (a map from "New Scientist" I think)

The Amount of Resources Left in the Earth: (I'm assuming this means economically feasible resources. Technically, the earth's core is solid iron, but there's no way you're gonna get that any time soon.) The image shows the current and potential (that is, if all nations consumed resources at 1/2 the US rate, which assumes rapid development) depletion rate. I think that, given countries like China, India, and Brazil (even Russia again in a decade or two), are starting to attain World Power status, the depletion rate might be a bit quicker (i.e., copper might be more like 50 years instead of 61).

(spoiler tag for a super-large image)
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg

According to this, copper runs out this century. There've already been copper thieves (one stole the copper rainspout from our church recently! :dubious: :wow:)

Gold also runs out this century (used for electronics and space technology).

Lead runs out (not that it's exactly the healthiest element out there... then again, we drank out of lead pipes in school and turned out just fine. :p).

Nickle runs out. (Used in batteries)

Silver runs out.

Tin runs out.

Uranium (nuclear power!) - Up to 59 years left. They'll have to start converting nukes into power (talk about turning swords into ploughshares!). Uranium, and a few others, are also listed has having 0% recyclability, for obvious reasons. So, I don't think nuclear power will be a power source for too long, unless Breeder Reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) are used (not sure why they were banned).

Zinc runs out.

Antimony (medical drugs) runs out.

Coal - Not listed, but I've seen anywhere from 200-400 years left.
Oil - Also not listed, but I've seen anywhere from 25-40 years left, but with oil in the carribean, off of Brazil, and the North Pole, it could be 100 years.


B - Transportation - Probably cars, but if oil gets too expensive (and physcologically, I don't think people would be thrilled about having a "nuke in the tank" - just imagine all of the Snopes urban legend articles that would generate!), then bikes, animals, or walking. Currently, there's only a few million horses in the US (many in the mid-atlantic, and in the Great Plains), and half as many donkeys, mules, and llamas (yes, there are llama carts (http://www.hawknet.ca/serenity/kim3.jpg)).

I do not see flying cars, since there's just too many issues, like chain reaction mid-air collisions, a flying car running out of fuel in flight, 50,000 flying cars vying for a parking spot at a stadium at once. That's assuming that they're atleast computer controlled. How would police deal with a flying car chase, too?

C - Manufacturing - Don't know. I think that's kind of broad. You'll still have cotten, wool, iron (and steel). But, with depleting resources (or increasing costs), carbon nanotube based objects might help out a bit.

Also, in regards to resource manufacturing and mining, I don't think we'll be mining space asteroids any time soon. Yes, there's the Space Elevator project (which costs maybe half of most nation's GDP), but such an elevator would be SLOW (22,000+ miles would take a few weeks). Plus, there's legal and political implications. Who gets the resource? What about corporate monopolies? I could see wars fought over these things (and someone's bound to use an asteroid as a weapon). Secondly, how do you mine it? Do you bring it into orbit? Do you send a robotic space craft out to mine it? Mine it on-site in orbit? Things like solving lack of gravity and radiation would have to be done first, much less having some sort of manufacturing colony in space already.



One interesting point of note with regards to declining resources. Back in 1500BC-1200BC, the Middle East faced the same problem with depleting tin. That meant an increase in the cost of bronze (swords, farming tools - and thus, the cost of grain went up - hyper-inflation?). That caused the region to descend into a Dark Ages. I was reading a book on Google (http://books.google.com/books?id=YmtN6zr_hroC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=Dark+Ages+2200BC&source=bl&ots=CN3DU_cVF4&sig=Rq72GWjArFoSQ9YuTQ8XDi60v-E&hl=en&ei=521PSsi8GNSLtgew27CyBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1) about different periods of Dark Ages -

2200BC - 1700BC: Caused by climate change (volcanos I think).
(approx.) 1200BC - 700BC: Declining resources.
500AD - 1000AD: Mass Migration (caused essentially by a unified China pushing west)

Thank you for contributing so much to this!

(spoiler tag for a super-large image)
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2605/26051202.jpg

Thank you! I've been trying to find this image. :D

Declining numbers of such elements would mean recycling is more cost-effective. It could make the energy and labor used in (to give one example) breaking down a computer for its elements actually worthwhile. But we could also find new technologies and techniques to mine deeper (possibly damaging the environment more) and extract more of these elements from their origin, or probably new alternative and synthetic materials to replace them.

And if those materials run low then there is no option but to go into space. I think it there would be serious consequences if we get to that point without investing in space technology.

Interesting strike against windmills, though I don't think this is universally true:

Billionaire oil man T. Boone Pickens is shelving plans to build the world's largest wind farm.


T. Boone Pickens says the capital markets will not support his plans to build the world's largest wind farm.

The chairman of BP Capital Management announced Tuesday that his plans for the Pampa Wind Project, designed to generate 4,000 megawatts of electricity using thousands of wind turbines, is on hold.

"I had hoped that Pampa would be the starting point, but transmission issues and the problem with the capital markets make that unfeasible at this point," Pickens told CNN's
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/pickens.wind.farm/index.html

None, I predict that we would have killed ourselves through one inventive method or another by that time.