Ignoring all the memes like fusion, what's our current best

>>8526932
Just hack the matrix DUDE

>>8526956
this desu

WAKE THE FUCK UP MICHAEL YOURE IN A CCOMA

>>8526932
define "best"
energy production is usually based on cost to generate kilowatt hour
Coal is surprisingly cheap, solar is surprisingly expensive
Personally I like geothermal, drill down deep enough anywhere on earth you're gonna reach hot rock

>>8526932
Kinda depends on where you are. In Norway and the Pacific NW states, hydroelectric is relatively cheap. In areas that receive lots of sunlight, solar power would be good but needs batteries or supplemental generation at night. Sometimes it has to be natural gas of coal.

But the biggest and most immediate help would be conservation. Lights that have sensors to switch them on, fewer lights, fewer gadgets (really - electric can openers?!?), not using electricity for heat, etc.

>>8526932
In terms of long-term cost and availabilty? Coal and geothermal.

>>8526932
Current best way? I would say geothermal. However, I also think harnessing tidal power will be extremely revolutionary when researchers create a system where the energy from tidal currents can be captured without having an effect on the ecosystem e.g., in the bay of fundy.

I think solar will be a meme until they can develop something that actually is worth spending money on. Solar is pretty expensive for its energy production, and therefore isn't feasible as a main energy source for civilization as of now.

>>8526932
Whatever renewables you can get your hands on, then gas. Oil is too expensive, coal has the worst energy to CO2 ratio of any fossil fuel. If that still isn't enough, start looking at ways to increase renewables.

Nuclear as a last resort, if you simply don't have the land for a significant level of renewables. But it's going to cost an arm and a leg (anyone who says otherwise has been fooled by accounting practices which would make Enron look honest).

>>8527007
> drill down deep enough anywhere on earth you're gonna reach hot rock
In most places, you have to drill down a hell of a long way to reach rock which will actually stay hot once you start water-cooling it. If you're sitting on a volcano, then go for it (and it's certainly a better option than nuclear if you're somewhere that's, uh, "techtonically active"; like Japan).

>>8528856
Sorry to burst your anti-solar bubble, but it's already a perfectly viable source in a large portion of the world (anywhere with a lot of sunlight and spare land; or roofs).

Capital cost per MW is fast approaching fossil fuel plants, while operating costs are much lower (and more stable).

nuclear is of course the best in terms of cost

which is why the government doesn't let them build nuke plants