When will we let the scientists develop us a new source on energy?

Question

I think if we found a way to get on the moon in less then 8 years who says we can't get a new source of energy in less than 10 years?

*Of*

Answer 1

With some of the questions I see on this site, I think or education centers are only capable of producing rocks.

Answer 2

No one prevents anyone from developing other sources. But it's not that simple. Supply, distribution and changing everything that uses the "new" source of energy will cost much more than any of us could pay for it. So, even at $80 a barrel, oil is cheap compared to new energy sources. Right now no one wants to invest in an unknown. But the alternative energy hunt is on and it will take a long time and lots of money to incorporate it. A snap of the fingers won't do it.

Answer 3

They have been trying for thirty. The cost to produce energy other than Nuclear is so high that oil and natural gas are cheaper. There are a variety that you can use now if you want to pay for them.

We will not likely find a single source to replace oil. We will most likely have to adapt to community power plants that are powered by our waste products. These still will not provide for industry but they could turn out electricity, ethanol, butane, methane and other sources. These would all still produce those nasty green house gasses though.
A clean renewable is not in our reach until we have a means of storing electricity in high voltage.

Answer 4

There is nothing stopping the development of a new source of energy other than the fact that no one has been able to do it yet. Remember for hundreds of years alchemists tried to turn lead into gold with the same results.

Answer 5

If somebody found a new source of energy, they would be rich. If it were that easy, it would have been done by now.

I knew somebody would bring up hydrogen. It is not free or even almost free. It is produced by running an electrical current through water and breaking the water molecule into hydrogen gas and oxygen. You still need to get the energy from somewhere to make hydrogen. In addition it can be quite dangerous.

Actually are best bet is fusion.

Answer 6

Economics drives choices on energy sources. A number of alternatives have been discussed (e.g., a "hydrogen" economy) but haven't been implemented because the economics weren't right. I am alarmed, however, at the slow pace of change. The economy is essentially reactive--it reflects current marketplace realities, not future ones. Governments in all industrialized nations need to be more proactive in planning for a future without oil.

Answer 7

The scientists ARE trying to find a new energy source

Answer 8

The is already a new source of energy and it almost free but since there is no corporation money involved this system is suppressed.
They have complete home power plants and automobiles but no makes a profit from it except the user. It call hydrogen system and uses water for source of energy.

Answer 9

Why do morons continue to think nothing happens without grant money. Look around, airplanes, cars, telephones, radios, penicillin, art, mass production, all happen without federal funding. Nobody is standing in the way, except libs and their desire to tax anything that moves.

Air car? Yeah, right, real safe. Pollution controls won't meet standards either, the same reasons that keeps many foreign cars from coming here,

Answer 10

I think you're right.

Unfortunately, our best answer is here but nobody wants it. Nuclear power could solve our energy problems but everyone is too worried about waste.