How is solor energy the wave of the future?
105865
Solar energy is available in a large quantity, in fact much larger than all other safe energy sources put together. Energy obtained from coal, petroleum, other carbon based products and that obtained from nuclear fusion/fission is not safe for the enviornment.\nSo Solar energy has two major advantages -\n1. Abundant, hence making it cheap.\n2. Environmental friendly.
1170147
Maybe never.  Back in the 1970s, everyone thought alternative energy is going to go through the roof.  The oil prices fell...
519547
Most likely Energy in Joules. We need a context though.
948165
There have been proposals and designs for wave-generated electricity.  It is not the same as dams and is more difficult because of the variability of the wave motion.  I think the reason it hasn't  been done is that the mechanisms are expensive for the amount of power that can be obtained.
515649
http://www.darvill.clara.net/altenerg/solar.htm\n\nThis is a favorite source of future energy for many people, comforted by the thought that it is unlimited. But, quite the contrary is true. The Sun will exist for a long time, but at any given place on the Earth's surface the amount of sunlight received is limited--only so much is received. And at night, or with overcast skies, or in high latitudes where winter days are short and for months there may be no daylight at all, the sunlight received is very limited at times. Direct conversion of sunlight to electricity by solar cells is a promising field, but the amount of electricity that can be generated by that method is not great compared with demand. The conversion efficiency is low, about 12 percent with present technology.\n\nSolar energy in quantity requires huge installations. It has been estimated that an area of 60 square miles in relatively clear central Oregon would have to be covered with solar cells in order to meet the present electric needs of that State. About 10% of the cells have to be replaced each year. But the big problem is how to store significant amounts of electricity when the Sun is not available to produce it. That problem remains unsolved. The statement that "solar energy will not make next century's electricity" is probably right. And the end product is electricity--a very limited replacement for oil.
35367
I believe it will be possible. The first application of the development of such technology will be the transportation of mass amount of fluids, and solid materials from one place to another. Granted, these materials will probably be simple materials without complexed molecular structure but, it will be the place that other developement will continue from.\n  The technology is centries into the future if it is that soon. The general idea is simple. Breaking down atomic structure in a trasmitable format, transmitting, then reconstituting teh transmitted. It then is a matter of what atomic partical belongs on what part of the carrier wave of the radio/or microwave transmitter. Another additive to the  complexity, is actually getting the particals on the carrier wave. However, if modern modems can convert digital signals into anolog, and analog into digital signals, then other parts of a "transporter" is a matter of time.\nSide note on this: If it will require the power produced from anti-matter generators, then it should interest all that a few anti-matter atoms had been produced. It took more energy to produce those few anti-atoms then they could produce themselves, but it does illistrate that Star-Trek to Star Wars technologies are not entirely impossible.
1056073
It is a real concern, but whenever someone makes a prediction about when a country of the world will reach peak oil output, they do so with what then is considered a researve.  As the cost of a barrel of oil increases, sources for oil that were once not considered a researve then become on because at that cost it is economically viable to recover it.  With the recent spike in oil prices, North America can now clasify the tar sands in Canada and the oil shales in Colorado oil researves, and that being the case, it is estimated that in the US alone, we now have more economically recoverable oil then Saudi Arabia, the worlds largest exporter.  As the price continues to increase, other marginal sources will become economically viable.  Sooner or later, we will reach a point where there simply isn't enough oil available for any price, but that is still a ways off yet.  I believe that before we reach that point, oil will be more expensive then alternate fuel sources.  Through simple economics, I believe that people will begin using these alternate fuels simply because they are less expensive.  I believe that the high cost of oil will spawn invention and inovation into the energy sector, and I believe that has already begun.  We are working on increasing production of biodiesels and ethenol, and there is increased research into fuel cells and electric autos.  I think the future lies in hydrogen burning technology personally.  We already have engines that burn Hydrogen, but we're still working on the fuel tank dilema.  So, for a long answer, I believe that there is and will be time. I'm looking foward to being put out of buisiness.
702676
I'll say this much, there will always be structures and structures that need repair/modification and they will always be wherever you are. Electrical infrastructure is one thing that will be around for a long time, but electrical design and electronics design are getting offshored big time. In the 70's thru early 80s my part of the country was huge in defense contracts, then a downturn and tons of EEs out of work. Then telecom boomed and they became "valuable assets" due to the "shortage". Then telecom busted and EEs were on the street again and the recovering is slow in coming. Nanotech is supposed to be the next big thing around here, who knows when it will bust
1144949
Absolutely.  There is plenty of oil, enough to last for 100's of years.  Actually if you look at it logically, we will never really run out of oil.  Supplies will dwindle, we will tap into other sources, like oil shale, and oil sand, but the production cots will go up.  Eventually we will get to a point, where the cost is high enough, to make alternative energy sources, profitable.  Once that happens, competition and the free market system will find a cheap efficient substitute, and we will leave oil usage to the third world.
363884
Over the next 50 years, their product will be replaced in many markets. They have the resources and ability to adapt to and command future energy sources. I'd bet they have the wisdom to do so.
85622
His system is a total hoax. But one hoax does not rule out ZPE all together. \n\nIn a quantum mechanical system such as the particle in a box or the quantum harmonic oscillator, the lowest possible energy is called the zero-point energy. According to classical physics, the kinetic energy of a particle in a box or the kinetic energy of the harmonic oscillator may be zero if the velocity is zero. Quantum mechanics with its uncertainty principle implies that if the velocity is measured with certainty to be exactly zero, the uncertainty of the position must be infinite. This either violates the condition that the particle remains in the box, or it brings a new potential energy in the case of the harmonic oscillator. To avoid this paradox, quantum mechanics dictates that the minimal velocity is never equal to zero, and hence the minimal energy is never equal to zero.\n\nBut if Zero-point energy refers to quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic force fields that are present everywhere in a vacuum. That's energy in a Vacuum? Free Energy! Whoo Hoo! Right? Well obviously this hasn't happened. When I originally put together a Zero Point Energy page for this site, ZPE's promise to be a viable source of power was unclear at best. More recent knowledge in the area makes it clear that although ZPE does exist (maybe) it's probably not the kind of thing your going to power a car with let alone a StarGate. Current research points to the total amount of ZPE that is harnesable being very low, perhaps being zero. The rest of ZPE in the universe is by it's very definition not something you can tap into. If you are looking for more detail, there is a fairly readable page on the subject over at the Scientific American web site.  This is not to say that very very small amounts of power aren't just the thing in certain applications. Quantum Fields LLC is doing research toward using ZPE to power microscopic electro mechanical systems. So the field isn't dead yet, just don't expect to replace you car engine with a magic ZPE engine. So here a thing they are working on over at Quantum Fields, they call it a MEMS oscillator. No clue what it is or even if they have built a real one or not, but there you go...
18599
I don't think we will see gas at that level ever again. I'd expect that alternative energy sources could be developed but by the time they are, inflation will have raised prices too.\n\nWired currently has a story on why high gas prices may be better for the United States. It may be worth reading.
794964
Our home is headed for ruination. All the reports including one i saw on the news today regarding the fish stocks in the sea needing to be protected from commercial fishing , fossil fuels like gas, oil,  climate change, deforestation.  We will not make it past 2050 without radical change.\n         Revelation 11  v 17.
402225
I don't know BUT I think there will be BIG trouble during the scientifically predicted solar storm year of 2011.  I caught a science show (Please see link below) about two nights ago that was on of course @ about 1 or 2 am.  They discussed in documentary form and showed a scenario of nearly all transformers on EARTH destroyed by this which caused a GLOBAL blackout for approximatedly ONE YEAR.  Think of it, all the ramifications of NO ELECTRICITY for ONE YEAR.  We should use this time wisely to stock up on food and water and where legal on fuel.  It sure can't hurt and if it should happen won't you be glad that you were prepared.
347168
Energy that enters the system from the surroundings.
182000
Well, currently all technologies have their drawback.  I'll go into detail what's up and why:\n\nNuclear fission - older LWR (light water reactors) are inefficient.  They use less and produce more waste as compared to the newer models using heavy water and sodium cooled reactors.  New generations of nuclear fuel are providing greater efficiencies.  I believe the best would had been the Integral Fast Reactor.  This would had provided proliferation resistant means of producing power.  Waste would had been sorted out with their pyroprocessing methods, and stuff that would be buried would have a half life of no more than 100 years.  It could use up LWR waste and other wastes from lesser efficient breeder reactors to produce power indefinitely.  It could convert at most 20% of waste back to fuel, and reuse.  But with the whole process, the waste leaving would be completely free of actinides and other long lasting radioactive materials.  So, nuclear fission would had been my favorite, if there wasn't such a public outcry for the source.  Until public opinion changes, there will not be any new sources in the US for a while.  Additionally, cost overruns of power plant production (because of a lot of safety mechanisms needed) would deter a lot of investors.\n\nNatural Gas - you know gas.  It's gaining a foothold in the US.  Technologies are becoming more efficient and cleaner.\n\nNuclear Fusion - Something for the future, but until it's a proven technology, we can't live off of pipe dreams.\n\nCoal - ah, coal.  It is the current favorite source of power in the US.  There are more advanced power plants called coal gasification power plants which uses scrubbers and other means of cleaning up the air.  This is slated to be replaced by natural gas by DOE's estimates.\n\nWind, Geothermal, and other sources - \nWind requires expensive equipment that could alter the landscape.  Again, go check on the DOE's website, but they require many windmills to achieve what one powerplant can.  Geothermal requires hot sources in the earth.  Yosemite could be one, if it wasn't preserved.  Look at iceland for that. Solar is expensive and dependant of climate conditions.  It is better in the desert, but in cities with varying climates, we are dependant on a consistant power source.  Tidal sources of energy could be feasible if it didn't alter marine life ecosystems.  Currently it's a newer source of energy.  Scientists haven't perfected the technology to provide a competative means of power source.\n\nMy conclusion:\nYes I think coal should be continue to be used for the moment.  Currently, we cannot just change from one source to another because of current technologies and public perception.  There is a great market for this source of power - it won't dissapear in an instant until there are rivalling technologies that could provide comparable rates.  In the end, $$ are the deciding factor between the feasability of one source versus another.
190068
According to Bill Joy co founder of Sun Microsystems Nanotechnology will rise up and out of our control...I disagree since the technology is still on the drawing board and he's jumping to conclusions without factoring in human interaction and societal factors...so I see a complex future with governmental regualtions and social protests like such with the genetic engineering of produce.