[Bas]

Personally I think coal will be the cheapest with nuclear and "solar/wind/hydro" considerably more expensive and biodiesel still more expensive because it has to compete with the growing of food. I vote nuclear though, because coal is such a big producer of CO2 and I'm for 90% sure that over the coming decade global warming will "demand" our attention. Not Solar/wind/hydro, because they are not as reliable. Oil? pfffffff

I forgot gas, so include that with the oil (can't edit polls)

[NEOPO]

Take the same poll out to 50 years and I would vote for "Human"
In 20 years it will still be Oil as there is simply no similarly scalable alternative unless you think a nuclear power plant in every county and a hydrogen plug in vehicle or 2 in every driveway is a possibility

GLOBAL ENERGY USE

It does seem like we have peaked at 85 mbpd but we must not forget that we are watching Conventional Oil mainly.
If we take a conservative decline rate of 3% out 20 years we have close to a halving down to approx. 45-50 mbpd so yes in that instance Coal would indeed be King as far as the graph is concerned....... unless the Tar sands can be increased greatly to offset somewhat.

Yeah I hope the environmental issues and awareness thereof will help to reduce coal as well as all future hydrocarbon use yet I remain unconvinced that the world is convinced.......
As indecisive as we are we have some serious decisions to make in this time of consequences and with history as a guide it is not hard to deduce that we are decisively screwed

It seems we will have to choose between economy and environment and in that instance I feel real sorry for the environment.
Good bye blues skies.

[Bas]

Maybe this will help:



Looking at how important coal already is, I can't understand how anyone could vote for "it will still be oil"

[strider3700]

I can't see how it could be oil. Coal seems like the obvious answer but it takes a lot of oil to move that coal. Nuclear maybe? Of course if we have a nice war then wind/sun and biofuel will probably win thanks to bartertown

[Tyler_JC]

That's a great chart.

Look at how the "wind, solar, biofuel" line essentially doesn't move for 20 years.

Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of that category is actually "biofuel" and not wind or solar.

Burning wood to heat your house is still a biofuel activity.

So unless we plan on deforesting an even larger share of the planet, it doens't look like we can experience any significant growth in that category.

We are reverting to a coal-based energy paradigm and I believe coal will be the energy source of the future. Coal will not necessarily be used as a transport fuel, but certainly as an alternative to natural gas for electricity production in places like China, India, and the United States whice have very little natural gas left.

[NEOPO]

So we are not talking "energy" but "electricity"?

[lateStarter]

I'm thinking Easter Island. We will probably market coal as the new 'green' fuel while simultaneously burning every piece of wood we can get our hands on. I don't suspect it will be a pretty sight. For the moment, we still have the luxury of arguing about the coming decline. Soon we will be burning furniture to cook whatever food we can find.

[rdberg1957]

NEOPO--Electricity is the largest share of energy production. Coal is the largest source for electricity. Doesn't bode well for global warming.

[cynicalheretic]

Gerbils? Why oh why did you leave off gerbils?

[medicvet]

NEOPO--Electricity is the largest share of energy production. Coal is the largest source for electricity. Doesn't bode well for global warming.

That's it in a nutshell right there, and no it doesn't. A hundred or so years ago, there was deadly smog in Pennsylvania towns that would kill people because of all the coal burning, and the "London fogs" were often more coal than sea..and we are going to come back to that too.

Which will basically mean that the people that can afford to live away from those areas will, while those who can't will suffer the consequences with poor health.

[frankthetank]

50 years...human? I'm guessing a little longer then that until it finally goes over to human... but how many humans will be alive at that time???? Probably not as many as now:

I did a little calculation about human labor and cotton.

10,056,400,000 pounds of cotton produced in 2006.

1 slave in 1860 avg 575 pounds of cotton

We would need 17.5 million 1860 slaves to pick the 2006 cotton crop.

Got slaves?

I went with coal...although i say the world is still producing a good amount of oil at that time.

[mekrob]

I chose biofuels, not for the burning of food in vehicles, but in ourselves. Other fuels will be too expensive for most so the majority of people will resort to walking, biking, etc.

[careinke]

If you asked me what would be my primary energy source in 20 years, I would have to say wood. But for the world, I will go with coal.

Cliff (Start a revolution, grow a garden)

[Laughs_Last]

This poll needed more options, or choice for other.

Children are the future.

[gampy]

Even with a peak-oil reduction in oil consumption, and fuel efficient vehicles, I can still see oil being the aggregate winner. Expensive, and scarce, it'll still be the energy source of choice. We are not going to stop using it until it's gone, or we are.

[manu]

Let's see, for transportation and growing food it will be the ox and the horse. For heating it will be wood, some coal, and for those close to big cities nuclear fallout.

[NEOPO]

I wonder if these calculations are taking EROEI and energy density into consideration.
We have been exploiting oil extensively for less the 100 years but we have been exploiting coal for much longer.

The Peak in U.S. Coal Production




huge image


and according to the next pretty picture coal is already king

Looks like they have their NG/OIL/COAL items confused.

Yeah I say by properly adding EROEI and energy density into the equation that these charts and graphs would show Oil much higher on the scale presently and indeed above Coal into the near future.

Now that we jolly peakers are aware of the reality of the situation concerning Oil reserves.....does anyone here believe we have 400 years of coal reserves remaining?

And then there is the environment and what I see as a serious Movement that is constantly gaining momentum.
Coal?
Maybe its just rationalization to believe we can even rely on Coal, Oil or NG/LNG for the next 20 years.
If TPTB have been cooking the Coal and NG reserve books like they do the Oil books then we are the ones who are being cooked.

One day hopefully soon we will not count the BTU but the EROEI of the source of the BTU and then we will make some pretty pictures that reveal a very different picture.....or at least that is my theory

[Tanada]

Neopo, I consider all of those projections meaningless after 2010, far far to much uncertainty involved in the costs of each source and the pollitics leading to the choices reguarding each source.

[eXpat]

I agree with Laughs_Last, the wheel of pain will rule!

[Bas]

Neopo, I consider all of those projections meaningless after 2010, far far to much uncertainty involved in the costs of each source and the pollitics leading to the choices reguarding each source.

I agree. My choice for nuclear is based on the assumption we will see undeniable effects of global warming and a more strict kyoto protocol as a result; nuclear would be the obvious choice in this case. I hope it won't prove to be wishful thinking on my part though