Well,

We have to do what is possible and available in parallel with providing the alternative.

Sincerely

The first who will be able to extract helium-3 on the moon in industrial quantities will be able to escape from fossil fuels.India is therefore better to be friends with Russia and China in order to participate in the energy program.The nuclear reaction 3He + D → 4He + p has a number of advantages as compared with the T + D → 4He + n deuterium-tritium reaction that is the most achievable on Earth.

If engineers and physicists find a way to cope with holding ten times hotter than is needed for a modern tokamak, helium plasma (a task that seems absolutely fantastic now), then by increasing the temperature just two times more, we will ignite the reaction synthesis involving protons and boron. Then all problems with fuel will be solved, and for a much lower price: there is more boron in the earth's crust than, for example, silver or gold, it is widely used as an additive in metallurgy, electronics, and chemistry. Ore-dressing plants produce hundreds of thousands of tons of various boron salts a year, and if we do have enough reserves on land, then every ton of sea water contains a few grams of boron.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Investments-Adaptive-Profiting-Uncertainties/dp/1137591382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528016153&sr=8-1&keywords=ricardo+g+barcelona

Please allow me to share the link to my book with you. My short answer is: Energy transition is a recursive, and often tentative process. For this reason, we are likely to see a period where fossil fuel and renewables would co-exist. For this reason, I proposed in my book that we need to evaluate the prospects of energy, a portfolio approach would yield a very different insight to the one offered by following the false dichotomy of fossil fuels vs renewables.

It is very much needed to project the disadvantages of fossil fuel, without waiting till it exhausts. This exercise is to make people understand the importance of fossil fuel and environmental consequences of excessive use of fossil fuel. In the long run this is expected in the wise use of fossil fuel and also looking towards the alternative energy sources like solar, wind, nuclear, etc.

Heavy Oil is being mischaracterized as a disadvantaged fossil fuel or a dirty fossil fuel. Heavy oil in CA is developed under the strictest health, safety and environmental regulations. It costs 12 to 15% less per btu than light oil. CA refineries are designed to process the heavy oil into fuels, lubricants and plastic. It doesn’t have to be transported half way around the world like more than half of CA‘s oil needs. And CA oil projects control or offset more than 100% of the potential pollutants or green house gases contrary to the alternative imported oil. Many of the CA heavy oil projects use cogeneration projects to efficiently produce steam and electricity. Also the application of solar for generating steam to recover heavy oil is developing due to the tax incentives and the low carbon fuel standard credit.

CA’s incentives for import of crude oil rather than producing in-state resources makes CA one of the largest contributors to GHG emission In the world.

But CA ignores that reality.

The CARB LCFS credits ignore the benefit of in-state oil and gas production under CA regulations of health , safety, training and environmental requirements versus import alternatives.

Again a demonstration of political influences over actual scientific information.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Energy-Investments-Adaptive-Profiting-Uncertainties/dp/1137591382/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528016153&sr=8-1&keywords=ricardo+g+barcelona

I have covered this question in my book which could be accessed through the link I enclosed.

In power generation, we have more examples of systems that rely mostly, or entirely using hydro, geothermal or a mixture with nuclear. For transportation, this is a tougher challenge for now, unless we have a breakthrough in electric mobility.

I think people who did not work hard in their life and knew the benefits of working hard to grow the economy and create jobs are very silly. They think that erradicaring fossil fuels can not sustain job growth if you do it very fast. Your economy will tumble and you will have AOC living in her Uthopian society thinking everything will be OK. Things should be changed graduall. Liberal ideas today are becoming radicals and no longer concentrate on institutions but more on redirics and empty talks. I think the liberal should find the benefits of working hard and optimizin conditions before doing too many sugary talks.

Burning the whole oil and gas reserves would more than double the CO2 content of atmosphere. Forgetting coal...

It would be better to find a less dangerous way of producing energy.

For the moment, it would be better to develop the use of natural gas, whose combustion generates the lowest amount of CO2.

I agree that it would be better but how? We can pritch all day long about how bad fossil fuel is but until 2040 we will be able to have 27% renewable energy that can replace fossil. So we still need 73% can Ms AOC ( Alexandria Cortez )who know nothing about real world and energy resources tell us how she is going to teplace that. We should be realistic and work hard toward such a goal and not live in dream and socialize everything because people like to hear such crab. Socialism does not work, it can not create jobs, look at all these failing countries, even Europe is going to fail. Because the hard earner should subsidize the dreamer. Another socialism in new clothes and the goal now is fossil fuel.

Very fair. The damage inflicted in the air, soil and water is beyond belief and simply cannot sustain future generations. The melting of glaciers is going so fast that millions have to move. If you have suffered in a heatwave, arctic vortex freezing, flooding and wind from a super-cyclone, or a wind that brings trees down you don't want to suffer again. You need to switch your energy source to something that does not polluter the air; you would do that as fast as possible (no matter if your government supports you or not).

It is very disadvantageous to jump to alternative fuels without real evidence of growth of the alternative fuels and relying only on people who say things without evidence or for political reasons. Let us challenge ourselves and see reliable scientific evidence before going on the news and calling the green new deal from somebody like AOC ( Alexandria Cortez) whose experience was a bar tender. I wonder where she got these information that has no basis at all for eliminating fossil fuels energy, even after 10 or 15 years. I think somebody told her you are smart and you are a good socialist who can change the world and she believed it. Let me tell you my friend: base on scientific evidence if we keep growing in alternative energy At the same pace we will not be able to grow more than 27% by the year 2040. So how can we get rid of fossil fuels then.

Yes we are still heavily relying upon fossil fuels. But we know that the reserves of fossil fuels are limited and getting dwindled over the time. Moreover we have realized that the products of combustion of fossil fuels are detrimental to health of human being and environment at large. The very existence of this blue planet is endangered.because of the ecological threats posed by it. Given this piquant situation evolving at alternatives which are renewable ones is a diligent move and is a must for making the planet livable.

I totally agree with some scientific evidence, but I am not willing to destroy economic prosperity for irrelevant data that tells me we have to move quickly to non fossils fuels. We can always say good things to the world but we can not apply them when we have to.

In my opinion the "fairness" to project the disadvantages of the fossil fuels, it is not apt to the international deposits, but is referred to the adverse health implications caused by its excessive use and the insufficient coping with the environmental carrying capacity, to restore the polluted areas. Besides, in economic terms, there is need of developing strategies for the internalization of external costs (such as healthcare treatment) caused by its overexploitation. Moreover, in a technological viewpoint, alternative technologies are not fully developed and operable. Therefore, in the near future, the most feasible situation should be the gradual penetration and the supplementary role of alternative sources to existing energy mixes, whereas the forecasting to meet specific measurable, or normatively setting, targets/percentages remains actually a complex and unpredictable issue.

We have two goals now, stopping to burn fossil fuels and to reduce CO2 content of atmosphere. We can produce energy from renewable sources (sun, wind etc) and use it to produce hydrogen from water. But that would not decrease CO2.

Altrnately, we could start growing vegetables, which use solar energy to fix atmospheric CO2 and combine it with water to carbohydrates. Vegetables are the best machine to fix most of the atmospheric CO2 and convert it into fuels (in a closed carbon cycle) or wood (a pleasant, friendly carbon sink).

Nature can do everything, it is equipped for that; it just needs enough land. But we should stop multiplying like rabbits.

We must have to reduce the use of fossil fuels due to increaseing environmental emissions and energy demands. However, we must focus on shifting to alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and micro-hydro energy systems. The transformation from fossil fuel to alternative resources will depend upon the availability of resources, development of apt technologies and formulation of a favourable policy framework.

We should use strong scientific evidence without taking any decision to reduce fossils fuels.