I wonder why the article ignores the fact that deuterium is the only energy source that is in sufficient amount with a sufficiently high energy density?
Actually, I believe the energy density and availability of uranium would be enough to produce all the energy we need for a few thousand years, even with today's highly inefficient fission reactors. Of course there are many problems with uranium as we all know!
Wind energy could supply a large fraction of today's total energy demand. It might even be enough to supply all energy, but future demand is likely to grow, and it would be nice to have enough energy left over for things like gigantic desalination projects. I do not think that wind or uranium could supply enough energy for such purposes. The only source of energy large enough for this, other than deuterium fusion (hot or cold), would be space-based solar energy. The prospects for space-based solar are becoming much more realistic than they used to be, with the likely advent of space elevators. If serious global warming set in, I believe we could launch Manhattan Project scale efforts and we could build a very substantial number of space-based solar to microwave generators within 20 or 30 years. Combined with improvements in efficiency and laws banning things such as SUVs, I expect this could stop global warming, and even reverse the trend. However, it seems unlikely to me that people will muster the political will to do this sort of thing, or that the technical knowledge will become widespread quickly enough. Cold fusion would be and much easier and far cheaper alternative, if only it could be made to work reliably.
- Jed
