What would most likely replace fossil fuels as a main source of energy?
460294
Depends on what for.  Nuclear fission is great for generating electricity.  Biodiesel has lots of promise as a motor vehicle fuel (not to mention would be great for the US Agriculture industry).  Solar power can greatly reduce the amount of power individual homeowners have to purchase from larger providers (but the initial investemnt is expensive).  Probably a combination of Fossil Fuel alternatives would be better than adopting a single alternative replacement.
739193
Just pretend there's global warming and here's what you would do\nWe would start to look for alternative energy sources Clean burn fuels to replace fossil fuels \n1. There would be research and development that would create dozens of new business"s in this search. It could dwarf the technology boom of the 90's\n2. These business's would create or boost other business's to partner with, supply parts and services\n3. All these new business's could create thousands upon thousands of new jobs1,2 and 3 would all be good for the economy\n4. We could stop shoving money into the pockets of mega rich Arab Sheiks and oil companies and their CEO's. every time you pull up to the pump you know one of these SO B's gets a cut. It might even scare them into dropping the price of gas\n5. It would take the power outta the hands of rogue country's in the middle east and make them a non factor by making us energy independent\n6.And ............OH YEA we might clean up the environment so we don't leave our kids a filthy sewer of a planet!!!!\n\nSo what would be the drawback about doin this?
970194
It is a non-renewable fossil fuel.  Oil and natural gas are also fossil fuels.
347168
Energy that enters the system from the surroundings.
530744
An alternative energy source
1183876
Solar energy is the best energy in my view .With the help of this solar energy we can use solar cookers,solar lamps,solar geasers\nsolar heaters, solar refregirators etc
125204
Plastics may not be replaced.  They recycle well, and there is a lot of oil that cannot be converted into petroleum that can be converted into plastic.  We might find a biological substitute, though.  \n\nWe might even figure out a way to make oil.  Oil is organic material, after all.  We just need to figure out how to speed up the process.  \n\nI believe petroleum will either be replaced by a fuel made from plants (there are cars that run on fuel made from corn), or that they will convert to Hydrogen cells.  The problem with Hydrogen cells is the energy required to produce the Hydrogen.  I believe nuclear fussion reactors will probably be used both for producing electricity and for producing hydrogen fuel.  We may still have to use the fission reactors for a while, but I believe that because of concern about radioactive waste fussion reactors will become fairly common.
925702
Fossil Fuels have been more valuable because of the war at Middle East which is centered at Iraq which holds a lot of oil (which is a main fossil fuel) at Middle East. Government have made solar panels, hydroelectricity dams, and wind turbines to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Fossil Fuels have a negative impact on the environment because it causes global warming.
601243
Nuclear, beyond any shadow of a doubt. \n\nThe US has appreciable Uranium reserves itself, and major Uranium producing nations such as Australia are already favored trading partners and stable western democracies.\n\nForget corn. It takes more oil to produce ethanol than the ethanol replaces. I. other words using corn for energy means we have to use MORE oil. We currently produce corn ethanol as an economic subsidy for corn growers. If we didn't make ethanol we would have to dump that corn in the ocean. But Corn ethanol is NOT a fuel source. See the first article below.\n\nHydrogen is iffy. We can only obtain hydrogen by splitting water using massive amounts of electricity. That electricity has to be obtained using normal power stations, usually coal. As a result hydrogen is like ethanol: it takes far more fossil fuel to produce than it actually replaces. That makes it a possible oil substitute but very unwise WRT greenhouse gas emissions unless coupled with lots of nuclear power stations.\n\nSolar and wind are never going to be major players. There simply isn't enough land available to make more than a minor contribution and because the supplies are erratic we would still need other power stations to make up the regular shortfalls. See the second article below.\n\nNucelar is the only real solution.
388410
Alternative forms of energy, some which can be used today. Solar, Wind, Water etc.
138678
Wind energy is actually growing at a double digit rate, albeit from a very small percentage of the energy total.  Like solar and geothermal it's about as green as energy can get, so it is very responsible in that sense.   It will take strong government committment to spur it's use because it's still rarely competitive with fossil-based energy.   The Wall Street Journal had an article last week about the difficulty of the boldest experiment yet - a Danish island that has tried with limited success to get off shore wind energy as the primary source (it was going OK until the government withdrew subsidies).
1186528
At least one of the answers.  If we can break ourselves of our dependency on fossil fuels, it will benefit both our economy and the environment.  \n\nPlus, it's going to have to happen eventually; fossil fuels are finite.
62788
Nothing is free.  Converting the entire energy grid to alternative fuel sources would be expensive and in some cases would require that enormous batteries be constructed to store power and distribute it during times when the alterate resource is not available (i.e when the sun stops shining on a solar power field).  We've also become accustomed to consuming a great deal of electricity and the ammount of solar, wind and other plants needed would be enormous (I'm not saying it's not well worth the effort, but studies show it won't be as quick or clean as some would lead you to believe).
1105028
read this\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy
639722
Yes. In about 150 years there will be no oil if we continue this way.\nAnyway .. there are unlimited resources, at least for energy, ... solar/eolian/waterfall energy.\nHope this helps
411815
No.If there was we would use nuclear energy.It is not and never was a workable energy source because of the hazards and waste.
53672
This is a very complex question.  \n\nThe crude oil reserves in the world are a semi-finite resource.  It takes many millions of years to create the oil that is in the earth. So it is possible to run out.\n\nCurrently there are no plans in place by any nation that could compenate for the depletion of this valuable natural resource.\n\nSome alternatives are being developed. Solar - greatly available but unfortunatly at this time the efficiency of the solar cells is not up to the task of replacing oil.\n\nWind energy - another good option but the size of a wind farm to generate suffient amounts of energy is restrictive. There is not enough land available.\n\nThermal currents on the ocean - Another way to harness solar energy but again VERY inefficient.\n\nNuclear Fission - Already in use on a large scale.  drawbacks are the waste that it produces. EXTREMELY Dangerous radiation that lasts for thousands of years.\n\nNuclear Fussion - This is the power that drives the sun. Couple different versions are being developed but at this time there are not any viable solutions. Possible in the future but currently take a lot of energy to create this engery.\n\nBio Fuels - a great alternative that is already widely in use. again the main drawback here is the amount of land that would be needed to supply the amount of fuel that we use.  We do not have enough at the current time.  We would need almost all of our current farm land to supply the energy need and not have any available for food needs.\n\nFuel Call technology - A very good source of fuel and very clean as well. however the main type of fuel cell is currently the Hydrogen Fuel cell. This is relatively expensive to make and uses some elements that could be also be depleted in the future. also Raw hydrogen is expensive to make. Even though it is thought to be the most abundant element in the universe, most of it is bound up in other compounds. (ie. water, other fuels)\n\nCoal - another very abundant fuel source. Drawback - burns with more polution.\n\nSo overall, the world would definitly change if/when we run out of crude oil.  Things will become more expensive. Polution could get worse unless other fuels can be found that are more enviormentally friendly.  \n\nNo one knows for sure if or when it will run out but there are options. Just be prepared for many different products to come to market that will replace the ones that contain crude oil and its byproducts.