• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What energy do you see us using in 30 years?

EagleAye said:
And the permafrost would not be melting as much if it wasn't for the human production of CO2. We're still responsible for cause and effect. If you shoot a gun at someone you can't claim: "I didn't kill them - the bullet did."

AGW is only one reason for updating energy sources from fossil fuels. There's the pollution that goes well beyond just CO2. Coal is by far the worst. Gas burning cars are still bad just because of the tremendous volume of them all spitting out pollution. Then there's the fact that much oil comes from OPEC where some of that money goes to fund terrorism and otherwise anti-Western designs. And then there's the tremendous climb in demand for oil which is slowly outstripping production of oil. There may 100 years of oil left in the ground when we reach a point that oil cannot be extracted fast enough to meet demand. At this point we will witness a cascade failure of world economies that will make 2008 disaster look like a tiny dip. Lots of problems can be solved with an energy update. AGW is only one of them.
Click to expand...



There are plenty of reasons to change to other sources of energy from fossil fuels.

How does this connect in any way to whether or not the contribution of CO2 into the air by the activities of Man is or is not causing Global Warming?
 
code1211 said:
There are plenty of reasons to change to other sources of energy from fossil fuels.

How does this connect in any way to whether or not the contribution of CO2 into the air by the activities of Man is or is not causing Global Warming?
Click to expand...

the thread isn't about man's contribution to global warming...
 
Last edited:
code1211 said:
Have you ever heard of Dr. James Hansen?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah I remember him

Isnt he the activist guy who has personally earned at least $1.6 million in recent years promoting AGW alarmism as science ?
 
Last edited:
ReformCollege said:
This is a thread to discuss where you think the direction of energy will be in the next 30 years. Personally I think nuclear. While stagnant for the past 30-40 years in this country, nuclear energy is reaching a tipping point in potential. Gen IV reactors will be able to produce up to 300 times more yield than existing nuclear technology by reusing nuclear fuel in the reactor cycle. Micro Nuclear Reactors also have me very excited, being able to produce 10-25 megawatts of power with the flexiblity of being transported where needed and stored underground.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

In 30 years, energy production will be the same as it ever was.
 
Surtr said:
In 30 years, energy production will be the same as it ever was.
Click to expand...

If, in 30 years we are not getting 100% of our needs from renewable energy, then we should just commit mass suicide. We'd definitely not be living up to the "most remarkable species on earth" label.
 
mac said:
If, in 30 years we are not getting 100% of our needs from renewable energy, then we should just commit mass suicide. We'd definitely not be living up to the "most remarkable species on earth" label.
Click to expand...

Mass suicide might not be too bad an idea. A drastic reduction in the human population would be a good thing.
 
Surtr said:
In 30 years, energy production will be the same as it ever was.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with you there. I suspect nuclear will become incrementally cheaper with improved technology and have a marginally larger share of the market as a consequence. Shale fracking and synthetic coal/oil production too are likely to be higher profile than today in my view. Current renewables are an ever more expensive technological cul de sac which will hopefully have been discarded by then thereby reducing the cost of electricity production compared to the present.
 
mac said:
If, in 30 years we are not getting 100% of our needs from renewable energy, then we should just commit mass suicide. We'd definitely not be living up to the "most remarkable species on earth" label.
Click to expand...

Nice of you to come clean for us about your views on the worth of humanity mac but it really wasnt necessary :(
 
MoSurveyor said:
NASA: Climate Change: Uncertainties


And UtahBill is right - this thread isn't about pollution as much as it's about energy. You said ... ... so why don't you expand on that? What reasons did you have in mind?
Click to expand...


The balance of trade, pollution, technological innovation, international terrorism finance and sustainability to name a few.
 
mac said:
If, in 30 years we are not getting 100% of our needs from renewable energy, then we should just commit mass suicide. We'd definitely not be living up to the "most remarkable species on earth" label.
Click to expand...


We are probably the only species that has applied that label to us.
 
Surtr said:
Mass suicide might not be too bad an idea. A drastic reduction in the human population would be a good thing.
Click to expand...



Not for those who were drastically reduced.
 
Surtr said:
Mass suicide might not be too bad an idea. A drastic reduction in the human population would be a good thing.
Click to expand...

The planet will limit itself. That's why we continue to have new and more interesting diseases.
 
Surtr said:
She certainly tries, but medical science gets in the way all too often.
Click to expand...

Damn it .... bloody medical science what a nuisance that always is when it comes to saving the planet tsk ! :roll:
 
Surtr said:
We treat them, allowing patients to live a lot longer than they normally would. Cancer can also be done away with in a person if discovered early on.
Click to expand...

You do realize that the entire population of the planet could fit within the Texas border with room to spare, right?
 
Surtr said:
Because going extinct due to us outbreeding the Earth's ability to renew it's own resources is so much more desirable.
Click to expand...

Some of what you guys come out with is seriously scary. Saving the planet by killing the people is a non starter for most humans however guilty they are made to feel about existing thankfully :shock:
 
Last edited:
Surtr said:
Land isn't the only factor in sustaining the human population.
Click to expand...

No, resources are. Once we've outbred our available resources...we'll die off until equilibrium is achieved. That's what happens, not enough food, we die off. Simple. The earth will regulate us. The overpop myth notwithstanding.
 
mac said:
No, resources are. Once we've outbred our available resources...we'll die off until equilibrium is achieved. That's what happens, not enough food, we die off. Simple. The earth will regulate us. The overpop myth notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

And you seem to be really looking forward to it too :roll:
 
mac said:
No, resources are. Once we've outbred our available resources...we'll die off until equilibrium is achieved. That's what happens, not enough food, we die off. Simple. The earth will regulate us. The overpop myth notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

Bu then we run the risk of causing irreparable damage to the environment. Better to just deal with it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom