nuclear is one way but there has been negative movement on that front from the start.
Green house's are slowly becoming more prelevant within the farming industral and if we use green house's we can keep production up over the winter time.
Depends on your method. But that aside there is also Solar, Nuclear, and within the next 50 years Fusion is very likely to be viable
Fusion doesn't exist yet...
Solar is quite lucrative but an eye sore.
solar isn't efficient enough
Battery technology has managed to store more than lithium ion in a purely carbon based battery so thats possible
Solar is effecinet but it depends on the place you put it.
Even if we ran on only nuclear we would have enough energy for over a millenium
Not only that again eye sore.
Eye sore vs your civilization dies
gee I wonder what people will pick
maybe we will go to nuclear one day, but while people who remember the Simpsons it's not going to happen
Homer made sure of that.
Tourism and Economy vs destorying potenital tourists attractions hmmmm.
I choose the first.
Tourist attractions dont matter if you have no power
True, but there are other energy sources.
We are an energy based economy. If it came down to solar vs pretty much any facet of that civilization I can tell you what will win
provided we have enough foresight to do it soon enough.
but point still remains. hydrocarbons will not last forever.
Like I said, your looking at a problem that is possibly centuries away
we cant even concieve of what options we will have available by the time we in our current level would have seen an energy crisis
But that is not the arguement. there are other energy sources, and destorying potenital tourism sectors with solar farms.
not if the undeveloped world starts developing.
Wind and current energy are great alternatives.
As Wind turbines can be made to look astecically pleasing.
And current farms are invisable to the naked eye.
Canada man I was talking about solar and since we are moving on here it not really relivant given the efficiency of Nuclear
True.
Thats even assuming we dont nix Fusion within the next 50 years
Nuclear energy is effeicent but the stigma is still there depending on the saftey nets provided.
even if we dont we have the benifit of a few hundred years of hydrocarbons and uranium+low level reactives like thoreum
There is really no point in freaking out over something like peak oil
Mhm.
But we all can agree that telsea is shit right?.
yeah, thats just a hipster money trap
Thank you.
Have had a hard time convinceing normies on the fact telesa sucks.
the real question is how many years of hydrocarbons do we have left? 50?
we boosted our technology dramatically because of cheap easy energy.
