There is no such thing as "Clean Renewable Engery". Its a Fantasy, all things have a cost, even if you are not directly paying for it.,(reply>), @TatsuyaKai I've seen several presentations on other channels of these small reactors. The technology seems very promissing but the general oppinion is realy obstructing these initiatives.<br><br>As far as it concerns transportation, I'm still surprised the use of straigh, pure plant oils was never taken serious. The industry made us believe it needed to be processed while most diesel powered cars were perfectly able to deal with it without mayor modifications, if any at all. That would not so much reduce the production of CO2 but had shortened the chain between production and absorption drasticly so in the end less would have been floating in the atmosphere.,(reply>), @Martijn Maas I'm well aware about advances in geothermal but the problem is we aren't there yet, and that is the problem, we don't have another 2 decades to decide anymore.<br><br>As for nuclear, that is true for major plants, but there actually has been a recent development in nuclear reactors, small modular ones, which can be transported and built much faster and easier (i believe breeder reactors are usually these "mobile" reactors), some of the recent advancements of nuclear are amazing if i'm being honest.<br><br>As it is right now, we're still going to be using coal and oil for the forseeable future, so if our reason for going green is to clean up the environment, the best solution would be advancement of carbon sequestration technologies instead of trying to ban fossil fuels.,(reply>), @TatsuyaKai Correct, you said that indeed.<br>I tried to point out that the idea of boiling on lava is a very limited version of using geothermal energy and that your statement about not drilling was not correct or complete.<br>If lower temperature solutions are considered, geothermal is globaly usable.<br><br>One of the mayor downsides of nuclear energy as part of the transition is that it takes more than a decade to construct new installations from scratch and that these installations are there to stay. Not just to help the transition.<br>Still it is one of the best options to reduce the footprint, reducing population is second best.,(reply>), @Martijn Maas I think you didn't read my original post, i said that the problem with geothermal is that it cannot be easily distributed, and that is true.<br><br>I also said that at least for the time being, if you want a solution to the carbon emitting fuels, it will have to be nuclear as neither solar nor wind are easily manufactured, and are heavily toxic to the environment to mine and manufacture.<br><br>For the next 50 years, for home and energy, nuclear is the way to go, for cars and vehicles in general, whether people like it or not, gas powered is likely to be the best source, though all the cars on the road add negligible emissions to the environment, the majority comes from industrial, and unless you want to upheave human civilization, your only option there is sequestration of the particulates in the air, cutting off isn't viable in the near term without killing billions.,(reply>), @TatsuyaKai Your conception of geothermal is kind of overly optimistic. Modern society "needs" mobile power on demand. Vulcano's are not on demand, neither mobile. And far for from clean.<br><br>Geothermal can be drilled for (no need for an active vulcano) for large powerfull projects, providing electricity for a large grid and heating for local grid.<br>More remote, smaller projects can dig 10~20 ft trenches to use heatpumps for heating, powered by local available electric supliers (wind/solar/hydro) that is backed up by the previous mentioned large project.<br><br>Mobile power demand is another beast, we still need an energy carrier in the form of a battery or hydrogen system. Still, geothermal can contribute to it as source of hydrogen or electricity.