Okay and okay. One day very very soon, preferably before the planet gets too hot for our survival and we can still reverse man made climate change, we will discover far better options than OPEC controlled/manipulated energy.

All that prevents it and the universal prosperity it could engender, are mealy mouthed politicians patently serving OPEC's agenda?

If only an oil war was the only war in prospect for our warming world!

Where do we go if it gets too hot? Deep underground where the temperature never ever falls below 54C!

Or, maybe in underwater cities, under vast acrylic geodesic domes, while the resident sharks enjoy the view and the possible dinner menu? (Look Mum, canned kiddies)

I've got an other idea, why don't we use exceptionally cheap safe, clean thorium power to vacuum Co2 directly from our acidifying oceans, then thanks to ultracheap and walk away safe, molten salt thorium power, make Co2 based hydrocarbons that OPEC can't, even in its wildest dreams, compete with!

$50-60.00 for a 160 litre barrel of oil? How about that barrel price for ready to use jet fuel or diesel substitutes? And somewhere south of a 50 cents a litre, indefinitely?

And very very doable with the proposed molten salt thorium, nuclear technology! And if we ever run out of sea water or Co2? We'll be long past caring!
Alan B.

Apart from the proven fact that CO2 can have only a very minor effect on our temperature, this garbage about reducing fossil fuel usage is pipe dream stuff, in the foreseeable future.

Even in our cities, small by world standards, can you imagine how many millions would die within a few weeks, if the trucks stopped bringing food, & the refrigerators, home & supermarket, stopped working.

Even if a concerted effort was applied, it would take 30 years simply to replace our power generation to nuclear of some type, the only thing that would do the job. To develop a replacement for transport fuel would be even longer, if we could actually afford either or both.

Ultimately I believe we will use steam powered transport, fuelled by a very small nuclear source installed in production for the life of the vehicle, but only of course, after the green blob has been eliminated

Hi there HASBEEN...

From everything I've read and seen the only viable commonsense fuel of the future would undoubtedly be nuclear. In you last paragraph you alluded to transports being driven by means of steam created by a small nuclear power source fitted to the vehicle during it's build phase. That sounds both practical and appropriate, but would it be safe given the number of ratbags hovering about wondering whether of not they can 'nick off' with the power source from one of those vehicles, for some other iniquitous deed ? I understand these devices are not of weapons grade, and relatively innocuous, but in the wrong hands...?

Australia's one and only Reactor, Lucas Heights near Sydney, is heavily protected by armed Commonwealth Protective Service Officers. Therefore would any nuclear apparatus of sufficient size to generate enough steam to power a large transport vehicle, be safe enough in the hands of the general public ? Please pardon my ignorance HASBEEN (I am ex Army!) and I know precisely nought, about 'nuclear anything'

What if Peak Oil = liquid fuels was last year 2016? We're about 98 mbpd according to some websites and we may or may not crack the ton. According to BP, Shell, IEA and the author's sources we'll keep producing and consuming more for at least another decade. Maybe not. I'll bet that instead of oil alternatives like EVs since politicians think that any downturn will be temporary that we can cut fuel excise. The Trump admin seems so convinced of fresh oil supplies they will sell down emergency reserves
http://www.oilandgas360.com/doe-announces-sales-strategic-petroleum-reserve/

If continued it may turn out to be their biggest mistake. Sudden fuel shortages real or staged will have a devastating economic impact since we haven't prepared. Commuting costs up, tourism down and the production and distribution of food will be greatly affected. Your historic plagues and wars affected millions this will affect billions.

Hi there o sung wu.

I don't expect the nuclear option in our lifetime, & not before oil becomes actually scarce. I guess it is naïve of me to believe/hope we will become realistic & tough enough to one day ELIMINATE terrorists threats, even by then. If we have not then this will be a Muslim country, & they will have eliminated most things.

I suppose if forced by the green blob we will see transport vehicles with very limited range, using half their payload to carry batteries. I certainly hope that more sensible minds stop that sort of stupidity, but am not too confident it will be in our lifetime old mate.

O Sung Wu, the refueled once in 100 years, still on the drawing board? Steam powered car of the future Hasbeen was referring to, is powered by a laser actuated thorium pellet or marble; and that 8 grams of thorium is less radioactive than a banana.

Nonetheless extremely dense and murder on magpies at ten paces, with a shanghai! One supposes terrorists would prefer semtex or anso, with which they could do considerably more (Oh my eye!) damage!

I favour the catalytically assisted method of heat assisted decomposition to make copious ultra cheap hydrogen from always abundant sea water. And use that liquified as an endless source of endlessly sustainable fuel, with a similar range of petrol in conventional engines, or more in fuel cell powered versions that take no more time to top up than LPG.

Small thorium reactors can be squeezed into shipping containers and with 40 MW currently available, run rapid rail, very fast ferries and subs as inboard power?

Large roll on roll off train carrying subs loaded in a single shunt should be doable. As would fifty+ knots, regardless of surface conditions, meaning the rail sub combination, challenging far more expensive air freight?

Currently scientists are working on the loop, a very fast FL train that operates in a vacuum inside an airlock tunnel, where a rail gun can potentially drive them near the speed of light.

Not that we'd ever want to go that fast on the surface of planet earth; but maybe the moon to sling shot alternating direction, interstellar space missions?

Down here, just mind blowing acceleration followed by equally mind blowing deceleration! And Paris to new york in less time than a plane needs to get off of the runway?

Rigorously rigidly resisted, affordable energy the key to all of the above and the reason none of us will ever see any of it in our life times, along with the massive economic benefits they'll ensure, all over the joint!
Alan B.