I am going to be very blunt. Lep is the only one who has commented so far who has a realistic grasp of the scope of the energy problem and the potential solutions.

Biodiesel:

Algae is the most efficient current means of producing the requisite oils which are then processed (esterification) to produce a fuel that can burn in common diesel engines.

To produce enough energy to supply the transportation demands of the United States, something like 1/3 of the airable land of the USA would have to be used for algae ponds. To grow enough grain crops (rapeseed) would take even more land. Even if you were to do this, where does the water come from? We already have terrible problems with that in the west.

NOTE: This is for transportation ONLY. There simply is not enough energy available form biomass to meet all of our needs. Biodiesel may be a good interim measure, but it is not a viable long term solution.

Other forms of biomass fuel are more promising, such as gasification of wood, but I do not know the specifics of how much energy is actually available there. I think there is more than enough, but there has not been a huge amount of research done in this area so far as I know, so I don't see it as a likely future alternative.

The "Hydrogen Economy":

Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It needs to be produced either from fossil fuels, biomass, or splitting water. In all cases, energy is lost in conversion. Fuel cells do not run on water, and never will.

There are MASSIVE technical hurdles still to the practical implementation of fuel cells, not the least of which is a cost-effective method of producing hydrogen. Fortunately these are now mostly in the realm of engineering rather than basic science, so I think you will see the mass introduction of fuel cell technology within the next fifty years, but not sooner than ten or twenty (except maybe in portable electronics, which will come sooner, I think).

Ultimately fuel cells and hydrogen will take over, but let me stress again that this is much like a replacement for the power grid. It does not produce energy it only transmits it to the customer.

"Renewable" Energy:

Wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric power are not viable options. Again there is simply not enough energy available.

As Lep indicated, Solar power is one of only three viable options available to us in the mid to long term view. There will be a mix of solar-electric generation and direct catalytic photochemical hydrogen production from water. Both of these things are a long way from being practical replacements for fossil fuels. At the moment solar-electric panels are far to fragile and expensive, while direct solar hydrogen generation has been a dream of chemist for the last fifty years. Barring a stunning scientific discovery (not unthinkable) both of these technologies are, in my view, 25-50 and 50-100 years in the future respectively.

Nuclear Energy:

While Fusion is, as Lep said, one of our only ultimate alternatives (solar is the only other option in the end), there is another shorter term technology that could supply the worlds energy needs for the next several hundred years: Fast-Breeder reactors.

These are advanced fission plants which are a proven technology. Indeed, I believe that France meets much of it's domestic power needs with such reactors. These plants are unique in that they produce more fuel as they run. I do not no the specifics of the nuclear decay chain involved. However, as I said, these plants could keep the world in energy for hundreds of years.

Unfortunately this design suffers from two politically, and maybe practically fatal flaws. First, the design produces weapons-grade materials (Pu-239). Second, these reactors have a positive temperature coefficient. The first of these objections is obvious to everyone, while the second is more subtle and far more dangerous.

All American reactor designs have negative temperature coefficients. what this means is that as the fuel rods heat up, the fission reaction is attenuated. Thus, it is literally impossible to have a "meltdown". A positive temperature coefficient on the other hand creates exactly the reverse situation. As the core heats up, the reaction rate increases and generates more heat.... Chernobyl had a positive temperature coefficient. You might be interested to know that even that terrible accident was not a true meltdown. A true meltdown involves the runaway reaction of the core causing it to literally melt it's way straight through the earth's crust.

Conclusion:

The ONLY viable alternatives in the long run are solar and fusion power. That said however, the "crisis" is not as bad as many people want you to believe. For example, there are enough proven coal reserves for the next fivehundred years. All that wants is improved technology for using it in a more environmentally benign way.

In terms of the America here is my checklist:

• Conservation is #1. Strict emissions and fuel efficiency standards on all new vehicles ought to be enacted along with a massive gas tax to stimulate consumer desire for efficent vehicles and public transport.
• Throw a great deal of money into short-term high payoff ways of exploiting our massive domestic coal reserves.
• Work toward a clean energy distribution system (hydrogen)
• Continue with fusion and solar power research at the best possible rate. in particular all the countries involved need to stop their goddamn bellyaching about where ITER will be located and just build the damn thing.

? quoting Gwil

Consumer desire will be riled and beaten down by easy points scoring party politics. People live for the moment, not for the future.

In fact, I'll just opt out this thread as everything I say is the blunt truth and not conducive to good debate on the topic

Something something nazi conspiracy oh wait something.

TBH, this isn't the best of all topics for a debate (no offense Orph) because there are too many objective facts involved. The best debates are philosophical ones where facts are few and far between.

In my view, high oil prices are about the best thing that could happen to the world, and I don't really care how they get there. A tax would be best, but I'll settle for war and wanton destruction. Either one will stimulate technical innovation to overcome the obstacle.

*Prays for $10/gal. gasoline*

I'm not all that depressed about it. I don't figure on anything catestrophic for at least a few hundred years, but I guess you never can tell.

Tracer, I also hate to be blunt.

except for your last part about the American checklist, everything you typed is at least a decade away, if not many decades.

the American infrastructure will not allow itself to be so vastly transformed on so big a pipe dream as the things you said. Its not that I disagree, far be it, but it is vastly unrealistic to even imagine most of what you typed, even if it is the only and best solutions proposed so far.

Americans are spoiled, bottom line thats the biggest fact you have to contend with. it is the biggest hurdle, and it will be the biggest and slowest one to change. I have heard people get stinking slobby pissed over any proposition that discriminates against their right to own an SUV. they will not stand for any solution that taxes them more than anyone else, it is "their god given right" gimme a f**king break.

anywho's, I like what you typed, but honestly its either years away, or a pipe dream. sorry, but its not the best, most realistic solution today. and today is the problem. tomorrow an asteroid could cause a nuclear winter and our problems will solve themselves.

on the short term, from a purely economical standpoint people must use they available infrastructure already in place.

1) people can conserve.
2) machines can be made more efficient.
3) fuels can be grown and processed.
4) wind generators can be used more frequently. (i am surprised no one till you,said this but my being a traveler by trade, i have noticed a vast upgrade in installing these generators over the last year.)

currently, it doesn't matter if you or lep are the two most intelligent people here in this discussion, what really matters is a practical viewpoint, and any common person has that attribute. actually it is forced upon the less intelligent because life treats dumb people harsher and they tend to be more attuned to what needs to be done to make their lives less miserable.

I am not picking on you tracer, but i do feel your comments were impractical for any short term results.

thats twice you have claimed wind power is not an option. there are untold millions of acres un-used by anything more than a a bird perch or a rabbits burrow in the US.

in fact, it doesn't even have to be barren, i would jump at the chance to have a wind generator in my yard. can you imagine the fuel savings if we did not rely on the fossil sources to heat our homes or to run the mundane items like refrigerators?

true, it wouldn't be prudent to put them in towns as most people are just to stupid to leave them alone. someone is bound to run into one while driving (and talking on their phones )

but rural and semi-rural residences could easily have one in each yard.

and thats with today's tech. there have got to be improvements available to the generating process.

i mean no insult, but America is only using a few percent of its surface for anything more than range cattle.

wind power is an option.

*blushes*

oh stop.

seriously though, it is near impossible to describe our country to anyone whom has not seen it. it doesn't seem to matter if they live here or not.

another consideration. there is vast portions of the world where the wind never stops blowing, and cannot be used by anything other than a polar bear or penguin.

other places where a scorpion is the only native alive for miles too.

wind power has got the be the least used, and most easily implemented power generation available. /me wonders what i am missing.