We have enough Thorium to power the world for 8,000 years at current energy levels in a very safe and clean way ... Anyone who makes claims that we need renewable energy in the lifetime of anyone who is alive today is just demonstrating that they're uninformed or brainwashed by "green" propaganda.

Note to mods: Just posting through this account because I can't get in through my normal one.

...

@HappySquiriel

Exactly. I also think thorium breeder reactors will be good way to produce energy in the future. The real challenge I see is supply of energy (if we want this to eventually replace fossil fuels too, which would be neccessary with the rising prices for obtaining it). We would need to make huge leaps in battery storage or have a revolution in our infrastructure (i.e. create "powered " roads).

That said, I think renewables are a nice idea, and will probably have plenty of applications in remote areas. But I don't see them ever supplying the world on a large scale.

Please, saying that now is like if someone in 1960 said "there's no way we'll ever have home computers, it's just not feasible."

Technology will get there, and we're only looking at base renewables (Solar/Wind), when we can also look at other factors, like hydrogen, thorium, and other side-factors

Not to mention that we're starting to replicate the oil creation process in a way that would actually consume CO₂ , via new algae farms (and the latter is something big oil supports, so we won't have any of this scare tactics propaganda working against that one)

The future of energy diversity is now, though out-of-the-ground fossil fuels will continue to have a role until their scarcity hits the point where they are cost-prohibitive, though that's still a ways off

Damn, I wanted to say that.

I believe that the then-president of IMB (!) actually said something similar. Many people were skeptical about the ideea of having a computer in your own home, and actually laughed at the ideea. Looks who's laughing now.

I would actually say that people who claim we will see cost effective and practical renewable energy from solar, wind or biofuels in our lifetime are like the people in the 1960's who envisioned everyone having a flying car by the year 2000.

Realistically, Fusion and Thorium reactors are the practical energy sources of our future and most "Green" energy projects are forms of governmental waste designed to appeal to a very vocal loby while giving kickbacks to the friends of the government who is in power.

People with home computers! Mostly due to funny youtube videos though.

Pretty much this.

Most renewables have strategic problems that will prohibit them from replacing non-renewables. Hydro is great, but its very limited in capacity. Geothermal has significant environmental problems (see Germany's fracking issues), PV is insanely expensive and may take generations to be reasonable, and only works during the daytime, and wind is limited as to where it can be used.

I'm not against renewables. However, I am against the government forcing businesses into certain energy production methods. We have seen in Spain, who has adopted significant usage of solar, that it doesn't benefit the country nearly as much as billed - they've lost jobs due to it, it can be very expensive, and the government has invested billions into it with very little return on investment.

The free market must be the one to come up with the right solutions - regardless if it is MSR thorium breeders, PV, wind, or something else. Germany is making a huge mistake by banning nuclear by 2022.

I'm surprised that Salon is the source of your citation, Kasz. CATO had a much better presentation on green energy:

Throughout the history of mankind energy consumption has evolved across many numerous types of resources. The earth possess enormous amounts of energy in many different forms. Mankind has used such things as lumber, coal, natural gas, crude oil, ethonol,  wind, solar, biofuels, thorium, cold fusion, atomic, nuclear, hydrogen, ect. The list goes on. The sources are astounding. In light of this I do not agree with goverments and world leaders trying to force civilization of of one resource or another. I believe in a free market where energy sources will be used when they are cost effective for the public and the world economy. As a resource begins to become more scarce of course the cost of that resource is going to go up. Many times I think some public office holders think that the minds of the people who create commerce and energy production are somehow stupid.

Lets have a lesson in economics here. Company A is producing resource X, and it is currently the cheapest resource available due to its abundance. Many years later in the future this resource begins to get less and less abundant. Due to the high demand and low supply, what will happen to the cost of that resource? Yes, it will go up as the abundance becomes less and less. What would the public begin to do then as the cost of that resource begins to go out of bounds of their ability to pay for it? Yes, you guessed it...they will search for an alternative resource that is cheaper. It is natural for a human to do. So Company A begins to see that they are losing profits, and then suddenly Company B begins to rise as they are producing resource Y. Resource Y is now more abundant than Resources X, so Resource Y is now much cheaper to use for energy. The public is now giving more and more currency to Company B. Company A realizes this and either goes under, or changes their resource exploration from Resource X to Resource Y, because of the profits being made in Resource Y and also due to its abundance/supply. We know that eventually Resource Z will be discovered. Resource Z lets say is a new technology that is both abundant, and cost efficient. The public will then naturally switch from Resource Y to Resource Z.

You see energy runs in cycles. As we learn more about how to use certain energies on our earth, our usages of various resources will change. This does not need to be pushed or forced by governments. The people will decide for themselves what is most effecient and cost effective for them to buy. Companies have to change their methods as demands from the public changes. If not then certain companies would no longer be profitable and would go under.

Wind and solar have good benefits and in the future may play huge roles in energy consumption. But why is it that the world economy is not switching to those renewable energies in large quantities, but rather minor changes with governments pushing it? Its due to the fact that other resources such as Coal, natural gas, nuclear, and crude oil are still more efficient, and cost effective for most people. Forcing the public of the world to change to a different resource when not needed does not work. As different resources of energy become better and more cost effective the demand will rise and so will supply. Our technologies are always changing and getting better. As technologies change to more effecively use a resource so will the public follow the changes.

Exactly what I was thinking...

Yeah, it costs money, what a surprise. But isn't it better in the long run?

It's not that bad. In Spain wind power is the no1 energy source atm:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/wind-becomes-spains-biggest-energy-source

I don't think Spain spent THAT much money on it, right? 5 of the 17 regions of Spain get over half of their energy from renewable sources and a couple of them are close to 100% now. This is very feasible, I don't get why money is such a big issue.

Also, what you spend on building the thing you save on importing fuel in the long run anyway.

Spain spent astronomical amounts of money on their renewable energy. Solar PV cost per KWH is 3x nearly every other energy source. Wind is still more expensive as other non-renewable energy sources.

Is it better in the long run? I question that. You still have to mine rare earths to build the plants, make the metals, and replace them every few years when they die. In the end, your hurting the economy significantly for these energy sources, because of the tax monies that are being taken away from the people or other projects, and put into subsidies to fund these projects.

Spain is being forced to cut their PV energy subsidies, as they have spent gargantuan amounts of money on them with very little return. It is costing them billions of Euros per year to subsidise renewables, hurting their already-collapsing economy.

According to estimates, Spain has spent over $15 billion on energy subsidies over the past 5 years (http://ianscityscope.wordpress.com/2009/03/29/heavy-subsidies-sustain-spains-wind-power/). That is, on average, 10% of their entire government budget just for renewables to run in their country. That model is unsustainable. Say what you want about the environment - if your country is going to collapse, I think that it may be in your best benefit to abandon subsidizing 'green' energies in favor of survival.