oil,gas run out, we import fuel suplies from abroad.How can we avoid rely our energy on undermocratic country

Answer 1

wtf? Spelling.

Answer 2

For this we have to take a cynical look at the bigger picture.

President Bush said something very important during one of his speeches during the Gulf conflict "whatever necessary to protect our assets"
After the war , America was quite happy to divide up the country between nations - ensuring they had the majority of the oil pie.
As global oil becomes harder and more expencive to extract, America will rely heavily on fields in foreign states, and sign treaty after treaty to ensure they have a continous supply.
There will be more wars, for more obscure reasons. Destabilising a government by serepticious means, then the good old US will step in and sort things out - leaving an important document behind as a final IOU.
Global prices will rise, but stay strangely lower in the US.

The real problems will start when the Arab states make a stand. Their reserves will last longer, and can therefore charge high prices in the end-game. Russia will stay out of this one, as it's high economic growth, will keep it's reserves busy themselves, and will play a waiting game with the US as the country fights amongst itself.

However this probably won't happen for another 50 years - so worry about what happens in your lifetime. - Buy some land on high ground, and start a recycling business. Buy only energy efficient goods, and teach others how to live without power or transport. Basic survival skills might be useful to your kids.
Good luck.

Answer 3

First, name any large source of energy that is not opposed by some environmental or NIMBY group. ..... That's right, there isn't one. Name an alternative source of energy that exists RIGHT NOW that can replace fossil fuels, hydro or nuclear at the same or lower costs. There is none that is not opposed by the "greens and bleeding hearts" crowd.

We can make ersatz petrol [gasoline] and other oil-like products from coal for about the same price as the real thing made from oil. Those who want electric vehicles, forget that the electricity has to be made somewhere, so double the number of electric plants. Hydrogen also has to be made using electricity, so you still double the plants and put the pollution there, since they use coal or nuclear power. EVs are expensive and short-range or even more expensive to get longer range. Hydrogen has to be stored and carried by a vehicle, to get the same 400 mile range as a petrol car you need to build in a freezer to keep it at minus 400 degrees, or compress it to 10,000 psi in a tank 5 times the size of a petrol tank or use 1500 pounds of metal hydrides. Not exactly practical.

If the Germans in WW II could make synthetic petrol from coal, we can do it better now. The other main problem in vehicular power-plants is the inherently polluting internal combustion engine. External combustion, as in a steam engine, is cleaner and more efficient. But steam powered cars have problems, which are solved by using the steam engine to make electricity for the batteries of a hybrid car. This also solves the problems with pure plug-in electric cars.

Since about 80% of driving is within 25 miles of home the steam-electric hybrid would run on electricity then. If it was needed to go a bit farther, then the steam engine would start operating a generator to keep the batteries charged. You would carry enough fuel to go 400 miles when needed or for any of that 20% of driving that is beyond the range of batteries alone. Having fewer batteries would keep the cost down.

The steam-electric hybrid could use any liquid or gaseous fuel, ersatz petrol or paraffin, ethanol, vegetable oil, methane, propane or hydrogen with minor adjustments and different fuel tanks, but mostly electric power. I think it would be very practical.

Answer 4

Most of the worlds oil/gas supplies are in 'undemocratic' countries. Avoidance is not possible and never has been. It is well to remember that this country (GB) was undemocratic less than 100 years ago (if it can be considered to be truly democratic today). Change that lasts comes internally , from the people, not from external influences.

Answer 5

Simple: quit trying to rely on obsolete technology. Fossil fuel technology was developed back in the 19th century, yet everyone keeps acting like its the "latest and greatest." It isn't--besides being a polluntant, it is inefficient and expensive. We have far better and cheaper technologies. It's long past time we dumped oil and coal on the scrapp heap where they bleong and moved on to modern methods of energy production.

Answer 6

It is easy we will never run out of fossil fuels. The fossil is of plants and when they deteriorate ,normally in the delta of rivers it will form more fossil fuel. The plants recycle our air from CO2 . the plants give us back the O2 and holds on to the C. This is where all our fossil fuel's came from in the first place.

Answer 7

Why fret about other countries, undermocratic or not, each nation has it's own destiny, and there is very little that we can do to really help them.
South America is dermocratic but most of it is still a rotten corrupt place. Educate yourself, educate your children, let Venezuela, or Nigeria, look after itself.

Answer 8

Rape seed oil, willow-branch fuels, geothermal heating, natural low-energy alternatives to water treatment (such as freshwater mussels filter systems), tidal turbines, hydro-electricity, nuclear power (debatable, but highly efficient).

Answer 9

I agree with others about nuclear but does anyone know anything about hydrogen as a possibility

Answer 10

Nuclear is your obvious choice.

Answer 11

neutron bomb, eliminate the problem, take over the land