VERSIONS: روسيا اليوم NOTICIAS FREEVIDEO ИНОТВ RTД RSS FIND US ON: YouTube Twitter
On Air Where to Watch Schedule 
breakingnews
Go to main page   Community   Forums   Business   Where will we get our energy in the future: nuclear, solar, fossil fuels, some other source?  
   
Where will we get our energy in the future: nuclear, solar, fossil fuels, some other source?
Sanjay 11 January, 2008, 09:22 In future, for most static infrastructure, it will solar or nuclear-fusion depending upon where you are. In northern countries like Europe-Russia-Canada it will be mostly nuclear-fusion. In other countries like India China US it will be a mix of solar and nuclear fusion. In India solar could be the dominant source of all static infrastrcuture with nuclear fusion providing energy for heavy industry etc. For mobile infrastructure such as vehicles, construction equipment etc, it could be solar + bio-diesel or bio-ethanol. However, in future the greatest strides in clean energy will come from energy efficiency. So long as energy efficiency is poor, all talk of bio-fuels will boomerang and result in enormous land being used globally for such purposes, threatening overuse of soil and other soil fertility, erosion and water management problems. Also, its unethical becuase billions of people still do not have adequate, cheap and readily available food supply. Making bio-fuels does not make sense till world hunger is solved first. Therefore, energy efficiency is the best solution. In US 35 mpg fuel economy by 2020 is one of the many signs of lack of respect for environment and utter contempt for future generations. Japan and EU will both have more than 60 mpg fuel economy by 2020 almost double that of US. US and China are the biggest polluters.
quote
0
Futurist 11 January, 2008, 09:45 Renewable energy effectively uses natural resources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides and geothermal heat, which are naturally replenished. Renewable energy technologies range from solar power, wind power, hydroelectricity/micro hydro, biomass and biofuels for transportation. About 13 percent of the world primary energy comes from renewables, with most of renewable energy coming from traditional biomass, like wood-burning. Hydropower is the next largest renewable source, providing 2-3%, and modern technologies like geothermal, wind, solar, and marine energy together produce less than 1% of total world energy demand. Till mass alternatives like Fusion and/or fast breeder Fission reactors come into everyday use, Fossil fuels will remain dominant. However, all alternatives should and are being employed, and no doubt within a decade or two, something revolutionary will come by! AND I AGREE - So long as energy efficiency is poor, all talk of bio-fuels will boomerang and create a massive FOOD CRISIS!
quote
0
predrag 11 January, 2008, 11:46 It will be mixture of alternative sources solar, wind and see turbines as in www.poduhvat.com and nuclear fusion project as in www.iter.org Project as this could change global positioning of powers as in who make this technology commercial first he will have biggest advantage. But most important this would make energy cheaper if made in right manner.
quote
0
Mother Terrecia (Mex) 11 January, 2008, 18:15 You all didn't think I was going to devulge the New Super Dupper High Tech, State of the art Solar Panals on this web site.
quote
0
Cheburashka 14 January, 2008, 03:45 really, we are still making cars using early 20th century technology! burning fossil fuels. what a shame! a regular gasoline engine gives what? like only 20% efficiency? the rest is lost as heat! burning coal for electricity!? WOW! i am no tree hugger, but it is 2008 and we should be using something better. unfortunatelly (and i hope i am wrong about this) there will not be much change untill we run out of oil completely because greedy oil companies will not let us to. not only they will feed us oil untill the last drop, but they will also make some more money on the shortage as well. the cleanest sourse of energy of course is the wind (and waterfalls), but no, apparently the electric windmills "ruin the view and endanger some species of birds. AWW 8'( and like the oil refineries dont ecxept more. i say if we build these wind turbines along the coast and nuclear reactors in the desert we will have enough energy supply to get off the oil.
quote
0
MihalMihalich 15 January, 2008, 03:43 Dear Ladies & Gentlemen World doesn’t not care about you or about what is good for you or your land or environment. If natural gas is more efficient at refining + delivery methods + accessibility + cost + everything other factor then coal government/business/people will use prefer it. Reason RT talks about it is Energy crisis, that people (6+billions) are too many warn up/power up/ and we need new sources. The most safe and the most efficient power plant is nuclear power plant…. The solar and Wind are low efficiency and require more tech and lower cost to be accessible. (there is also tide power plant but they too are rear) Theses 3 will be electrical power sources of future. 3 types power for transportation 1. Oil = Accessible, effective, byproducts of oil used from asphalt and tires to a candy wrap. 2. Gas = Low accessibility, effective, low emissions, lower cost. 3. Electric = Most accessible, effective, very low cost, Zero emissions. Companies like Tesla Motors and Chevrolet has created fully electric cars now they need better Battery technology to make car work in Higher/Lower temperatures and we are in the game paying $0.01-0.02cents per mile. Fully electric powered car will cost about $30.000+ and once they start making series. [As a result oil/gas prices will become cheaper/more affordable and that will stop super inflating every currency in the world.] And if you see people that talk to you about hydrogen-powered cars - run! IMHO hydrogen cars will never be affordable because of unreal $X00.000 cost of the technology and very low accessibility. It is simply not practical. This is my very futuristic forecast on power demand. (but it will not be financed by any offtake or oil/gas distributing government or company due to business profit interest, so it may take awhile) Best Regards.
quote
0
Cheburashka 15 January, 2008, 21:28 i agree that nuclear power plants should be the main source of energy, but as "clean and safe" as they are, i still say they should be concentrated in desolate places such as a desert. i wouldnt want to have to live anywhere near of those things. wind turbines, imho are THE cleanest source of energy. they mau not be efficient now, which is exactly why there must be much more effort to improve them. we will continue to use the oil, of course, but not just plain burning it. as you said, we need it to make other things.
quote
0
Norman 30 January, 2008, 23:11 Solar energy is a good option, provided there are a lot of good days. Safe Nuclear energy-yes. Wiser use of fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and ethanol-yes. Russia has a good source of all these energy options, USE THEM WISELY!
quote
0
Phil 4 February, 2008, 12:29 Surely we must all look at reducing the amount of energy we use to start with. This will massively lesson the burden on the global science and technology communities to come up with real world solutions. If human beings cannot perceive and own the need for self disipline when it comes to saving energy, and curb the greed, then we just don't care do we? Do not forget, the planet will not die, it will be the human race that will die out or go back to caveman technology. Planet earth is a self healer and will adapt, just like it has many times before. So maybe we do not need to look so hard and find alternative energies so quickly, maybe we need to change our habits.
quote
0
Gazprom 24 March, 2008, 15:44 Simple- Russia. Taking care of all your energy needs ;-)
quote
0
john 23 April, 2008, 16:50 Geo-thermal power stations ! Simplest, cheapest, enviro 100% friendly and unlimited. Once drilling technology improves geo-thermal power stations will be feasible on 80% on the land. And of course . politicians will need to choose enegry needs before bribes from oil, gas, coal and nuclear interests.
quote
0
chaingang 4 May, 2008, 20:18 A critical question being asked by all developed nations. However since Russia currently has`surplus`oil and gas which earns a lot of money and this is likely to increase given world energy needs how does Russia intend investing this money - these are the years of `plenty`? Can anyone explain how the energy funds are being used to improve the infrastructure; encourage research and development in domestic production; increase spending on technology education; improving health care provision.
quote
0
Enrique 19 May, 2008, 07:09 Even if the Russian Federation has an increible amount of oil and gas, it shoudn´t forget the hydro electric, wind farm, nuclear and solar systems for several reasons: 1. In far away Siberian regions it would be easier electrical supply by hydro electric or wind farms. 2. Oil and gaz in the Russian Federation has a lot of subsidies so if a larger proportion of Russian use energy produce by other systems more oil and gas could be exported to Western Europe and China for a more realistic prize. 3. Also, the immense Hydro Power of Russia is still mildly developed. Siberian rivers and future hydroelectric dams could be the main electric supply for China in the future. New hydro electric dams have to be build in Siberia (but with Russian and Ukrainian workers or in the other case that would mean a flood of Chinese workers to stay in Siberia)
quote
0
chaingang 11 June, 2008, 20:08 I agree that alternative forms of energy should be exploited but where are massive oil and gas revenues being spent? This money provides a tremendous opportunity to invest for future economic growth and prosperity. In the UK the revenue from North Sea oil and gas was largely wasted on unemployment benefits etc. More imaginative thinking should have been employed.
quote
0
Californian 21 June, 2008, 04:57 Solar Power is the answer. Global Warming's here folks, which means that Solar Power batteries are producing more then they have produced ever before. The only negative of Solar Power is that these plants take too much space. However the energy is unlimited - if the sun's energy runs out, we will have a lot more to worry about then turning on our cars. Combine solar power with electric cars and electric trains, and you have reduced the use of oil on the planet to a more manageble level. I am against Hydro-power plants being built in Siberia, because Hydros tend to destroy the natural beauty of the rivers thereby negatively affecting Russia's nascent eco-tourism industry, which if Russia plays their cards right could account for 5-10% of Russia's government budget.
quote
0
Dimensions 9 July, 2008, 13:12 I would say Solar is the correct answer. The power is always there and is constant. The only question remains is can we find a way to better get that energy and store it.
quote
0
DaniYah 13 July, 2008, 14:55 Has anyone here heard of the water powered cars? Several models are already in use by Japanese and US engineers.
quote
0
Old Soul 5 August, 2008, 20:37 Just like Tessla knew, in ancient times we used the energy that exists all around us. Pyramids and huge crystals were connected to each other and used this FREE energy for their airships and other purposes. The ancient records in India and other countries talk about this. The "secret" governments and corporations have been keeping new inventions and means of free energies off the market by putting people out of business or buying them up with the promise of putting them on the market. I knew of a man in the early 80's who was trying to get out a carburetor that could be 50 miles per gallon of gas. Like other inventions that I heard about, it was never allowed to be put out. His young helper was arrested and I never heard about it again. Look up FREE ENERGY online, and investigate ancient methods of using energy for fuel. Like Einstein said, "everything is just energy" anyway. The space ships run by magnetics/energy -- 5 countries have now made their records public about our brothers and sisters who have been here for thousands of years (England, France, Mexico, Belgium, etc.) Because we are at the end of an "AGE" of 26,000 years, when things crash here from the illegal takeovers by these secret governments/corporations that have been running all of this just for control and money, we will be helped to have energy/fuel that all can afford. And, if you don't believe the "alien" part, check out this website about the Vatican confirming them -- and Edgar Allen Mitchell, Astronaut talking about the coverup. http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/24731?gclid=CLLzleqy95QCFR4sagodADPHqQ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1037471/Apollo-14-astronaut-claims-aliens-HAVE-contact--covered-60-years.html
quote
0
CRG 9 August, 2008, 22:46 First step: try to save energy, further on a good balance between different sources of energy (solarpower, solarheat, geothermics, and other renewables (wood, biomass and wind). We should try to get that change as fast as possible ! Of this reason i've bought a CO2 reduced car with emission of less than 120 gramm per km !
quote
0
dissturbbed 16 August, 2008, 10:04 fusion or geothermal is the only answer anything else is just a pipe dream, you would have to build ten thousand nuclear plants to replace the energy provided from fossil fuels and the supply of uranium wouldnt even last a hundred years
quote
0
POST COMMENT
CAPTCHA
On Air Talent RT mobile Corporate profile Job opportunities Partners Закупки Press releases Advertise with RT All RT sites

Legal disclaimer Feedback Contact us © Autonomous Nonprofit Organization “TV-Novosti”, 2005–2012. All rights reserved.