Wind mill farms have been successful in areas where there are high wind gusts, Examples would be the Egmond aan Zee and other in the North Sea, White Deer, Texas etc. Proposed wind projects include london Array in the North sea, bear Lake in California etc.
However because they can only work efficiently in certain areas they can only power certain areas.

There is increasing demand for solar panels in Asia and Europe but silicon panels are expensive and new thin film technology panels are currently produced only on a small scale. Could that change in the future?

Promising new fuel technologies include Sundiesel. Gas derived from wood chips with identical properties to Syndiesel derived from natural gas which is currently powering vehicles in Europe and Asia. German Choren Industries, whose shareholders include Royal Dutch Shell, Volkswagon and Mercedes is building the first large scale BTL plant in Frieberg Germany. It is expected to be completed later this year and to produce several tonnes of Sundiesel per annum.

Algae is a productive source of biodiesel but growing algae in the closed system which protects it from predators while allowing plenty of sunlight is expensive and currently not feasible for large scale production. Alternative, less costly methods of harvesting algae for biofuel production are under experimentation. Also studies are being producted to determine the most productive algae species. The new pilot plant in Hawaii is a case in point.
I have no chrystal ball but i think algae will be brought into commercial production and put an end to the corn ethanol farce.

the next couple of years will be interesting. Very interesting

You forgot ocean technology. I like the energy Islands.

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3643#more

The alternative is here already, it's the ox. It was used for thousands of years and we will be using it again soon. At least the survivors will be.

In my personal opinion, the future of alternative energy isn't just the big wind farms and fields full of solar panels feeding megawatts into the grid, but small home and farm sized systems powering grid connected homes and farms. We've been using wind energy to produce electricity since 1977 in areas where it was generally considered that the wind resource wasn't adequate for commercial wind farms, but we get plenty of electricity just the same. Same thing with the PVs (solar electricity)--our first system paid for itself many years ago, and our newest additions will pay for themselves in a few more years. And the return on investment and the added security of being able to have electricity when the grid is down is great, too.

WisJim,
I agree. If we had 100 million homes producing half of their own power, and half of their own food, we wouldn't have such a problem, right? Why not take control of our own future, to the degree that we can, as individuals?

For some reason, many people choose to ignore these possibilities, but the impact can be huge, such as Victory Gardens, in WWII. I want to see a lot of small, partial solutions to our many problems. The grandiose schemes have their place, and we need them, too, but they are not enough, as has been dissected repeatedly here.

Small, individual answers usually evolve to be appropriate to each local situation, that is, wind used where available, and firewood where it is plentiful, etc. The concept of scalability is only apropos in context of a given situation. No, wind does not suffice in all cases. But that does not mean it should be ignored. Use each means where it works. The idea of using APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY in many small solutions could end a lot of debates on this board, which seem to be searching for the ONE magic answer to all our troubles. There are good, large scale projects that we should embrace, but no single one that makes any sense to me to directly replace fossil fuels, or oil alone. We are going to need ALL the available answers.

In our own case, here's what we are aiming for, but only part of it is online at this time:

Passive solar window box heaters and some passive solar heat from a sunroom. 1400watts of PV panels. Woodstoves in shop and home. Super insulation,better doors and windows. Cistern and hand pump for water. Porches and awnings to reduce cooling needs. Gardens,using local manure from the neighbors, orchard, rootcellar, canning, drying food, and saving seeds. Hand and foot-powered shop equipment. Passive solar preheater for water. More fuel-efficient vehicles, and a bicycle. Recycling materials and equipment for our farm repair business. Clotheslines, indoors and out. CFL's and Energy Star appliances. Reduced square footage use in our home. Cooler bedroom, more blankets. Converting to 12v. small electronics. Eating local wheat, grinding and baking it into bread.

There is more, but that's off the top of my head. No, we are not off-grid, nor independent in anything. But it has saved us a lot of money, gained us some measure of security, and improved our quality of life. If we all do what we can, in our own back yard, we will change the world, no matter what happens elsewhere.

This is one of the most frustrating things I find about people who say they want to make a difference but expect someone else to do it for them.

Cash-strapped governments have very low priorities for alt energy. But we see lot of people spending money on all types of consumer goods, recurring expenses like cable and cell phones, new cars (the Prius? Ineffective...), vacations, etc. Spending this money on alt energy has payback in so many ways that I can't myself see why anyone interested doesn't do it.

But the party is still going on, so why ruin it by not participating?

When the party is over, they don't understand that they will NOT be able to replace their grid and food and water with alternatives, because everyone else will want them too. If more people would start now, the need will be less in the future.

DK

dooberheim,

I suspect that the reason our govt has so little money to put into alternative energy, is that they are putting so MUCH into supporting the petroleum paradigm!

Yes, and they do it because it works - our society evolved by a path of least resistance. Petroleum does all we need it to do, and (at least so far) at a price cheaper than the alternatives.

A lot is made in this political year about oil companies subsidies, and them "blocking" faster deployment of renewables.

Confiscating $100 billion in oil profits might buy 5 or 6 10 GW wind farms (which only produce, on the average, 15 GW total). That's 1.5 % of the generating capacity of the US. This would make shortages of liquid fuels very likely in the near future.

Oil companies do not have to worry about renewables. Those companies that have invested in them will continue to (BP's solar panels, for example) but they know, and the general public should too, that the contribution of renewables to our energy mix will remain minimal for the forseeable future. Even at the high rates of growth experienced by renewable power, the amount of generating capacity that needs to be replaced is just too great.

DK

dooberheim,
Exactly. Cost/benefit ratio is the bottom line. As individuals, we can make out doing some alternatives, but the big picture cannot at this time.

NO single, nor group of alternative energy sources can "replace" oil. I'm tired of those who try to say otherwise. Our future will be dramatically different than what we see now, and the only wise choice I can see is to move toward our best guess of that future now, to mitigate the effects on us personally.

The big picture will be what it will be, regardless of our wishes.

edit: Probably because I live in a farming area and work closely with farmers, I see obvious benefits for them to use what they have to help themselves. Farmers make up only (1%?) a tiny fraction of the population, but the fact remanins that they feed ALL of us, a noteworthy point, if the nation is going to eat.

I agree, Doob and Patience. I am doing what I can for me and my family as fas as conservation and renewable energy but I agree that renewables will never replace all fossil fuels. The hill is just too steep.

Alternative energy sources are expected to have a one third market share by 2050. That scenario dosen't come from me. It comes from people way above me.

I think what we are looking at is a combination of all the things mentioned, together with a small scale down.

"Small"?

When the people above you say that, what are they including (or not including if that is easier) as "alternative energy sources"?

If they mean everything other than 'fossil fuels' I think it is pretty much a given that a third or more has to come from somewhere else in 40 years. The total is likely to be less as well.