Posted By Robert K Lewis John I think you are mixing your fissions and fusions in your posting somewhere! From a continuity of supply standpoint I think nuclear, fusion or fission, is the only total option. Uranium remember is only the starter feedstock; once operating fuel production exceeds fuel usage, hence the term fast breeder reactor. The waste issues have to be dealt with but potentially we ought to be using more of the fissile products as fuel. I rather think 10 to the power 12 years will exceed the life of the sun and thus not be an issue for resource depletion. This does not however remove the waste problem totally. I have serious doubts also about the sustainability of hydrogen supply for fusion reactors. It is, to my mind, more finitely limited than uranium and its nuclear derivatives. The end point however is a genuine mix of approaches with Gas and Coal disappearing off the scene as soon as we can replace them. Any CO2 producing fuel needs to be eliminated if we can. Bob

Posted By DaveW It's not without problems John. What is the most likely solution to a growing global energy demand though? Nuclear fusion or fission or alternatively; wind farms, solar panels and tidal barrages? Maybe the answer is...both or all as most appropriate to local circumstance. Question: what is the estimate for global uranium reserves and the associated potential for producing enriched uranium? (I'm off to find out in a moment) Question: How much would it cost to send our currently variably estimated 300,000 tonnes of global medium and high level radioactive waste to, for example, our local stellar incinerator? Has anyone estimated possible research and development costs for so-called renewable energies against research and development costs for the viable disposal of nuclear wastes? I haven't made any set personal decisions yet John as I don't yet know the answers to those questions other than via what is all too often apparently biased and highly subjective heresay. You'd be right to suggest though that in the meantime we cannot do nothing.

Posted By Chris Packham One possible source of energy that I have not yet seen mentioned is geothermal. The Icelanders use it. Admittedly, their geological conditions make it easy, but it should not be beyond the wit of our scientists and engineers to come up with a way of harnessing the energy in the core of this planet. Sure, technically this is a finite source as well, but then our sun also has a finite life - or so we are told! Chris

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith John, I was informed by one economics professor three years ago that it was 70 years of uranium at (the then) current usage, however as the cost of energy increases this figure will significantly fall. Unfortunately I have not been able to access any reliable sources of information relating to this. Are you planning to do any audax cycling events in the midlands this year?

Posted By J Knight Arran, No, not thsi year, we've moved a bit furher North and most fo my cycling tends to be in east and North Yorkshire. I am however planning to do end-to-end in Spain for Charity in September, should be about 800 miles and I plan to do it at about 80 to 90 miles a day. Are you doing much on the bike? John

Posted By J Knight Phil and Friends is round my old stamping grounds, don't like Winnats... Enjoy Everest! Sounds stunning, John

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith William, I like your idea of recycling oil platforms into geothermal electricity production, however as an environmental practitioner I dislike the overuse of the term “Tree Hugger” especially as this has its origins with the Chipko movement from the Uttarakhand region of India.

Posted By Pete48 I wonder what the total carbon footprint of this thread is?? Anyone ever heard of the chaos theory? It works for me when it comes to "global warming".

Posted By J Knight William, For the last time (I promise) carbon emissions are only one side of the problem; if emissions reduction schemes cause, for example, loss of bio-diversity, then they are not solutions, just bigger problems, and often this is what the people you so contemptuously refer to as tree-huggers are talking about. Yes, there are two paths we can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road we're on (sorry, but I really couldn't resist), John

Posted By J Knight Arran, Couldn't agree more; I have tried to encourage a more professional approach in William's use of language. I suspect he could just be trying to wind people up now, John

Posted By J Knight Good for you Dave! Shame about the hat though... John

Posted By John Murgatroyd So, what if you're all wrong ? What if the egg comes before the chicken ?

Posted By DaveW William, I like your use of the phrase "these tree huggers" as it indicates that there are "these" tree huggers but that there also "those other" tree huggers; the ones that are capable of thinking a little beyond the short term cliches of "renewable energies" and that may be limited to assessing only their superficial benefits whilst at the same time dismissing entirely other potentially "clean" and extremely efficient energy sources such as "nuclear". Solar farms, tidal barrages and especially windfarms are no more "environmentally freindly" or "environmetally sympathetic" than modern nuclear power stations. They have their own detrimental impacts on environments and possibly to a greater extent in many cases than modern nuclear power production which, given appropriate research and development with regard to disposal of radioactive wastes potentially put Windy Miller in considerable shade whilst at the same time potentially averting a global energy crisis at a brush stroke; something that will be a very long time in coming via those other ideals. Wind, solar and hydro operations, as renewable resources, are not automatically "environmentally sympathetic" per se as some seem to think. That's why, as one example, the RSPB and the BTO were opposed to the wind farm on Lewis. Without doubt they have appropriate applications depending upon local environmental circumstance but so too may modern nuclear power. My apologies for the cliche but "these" "tree huggers" may very easily stand guilty of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" whilst "those other" "tree huggers" may take a longer term and broader view. That is of course only my own opinion and I accept fully that other opinions may carry their own validities.

Posted By William Dave, Thanks for the pointing out the sensible side of tree hugging. I myself am not some right wing hard line capitalist, although i do work in the oil and gas industry and most likely the nuclear industry when the new generation of plants are build. I want to see a solution to this issue, instead of people and pressure groups having petty little point scoring exercises with authority. It is for this reason why i have used the term tree huggers damaging the environment as the longer they oppose nuclear and other forms of alternative energy the more damage is being done, but that's OK so long as they can stamp their feet like a child and make a scene, just because they think they are right. Nuclear is the only realistic way forward at the moment and we do have to look into what to do with the waste as has been rightly pointed out, although on the other hand i have not heard anyone bringing up what to do about the windmills and wave generators at the end of their life. Nuclear is an easy target to criticise due to serious accidents in the past, but it is still a young method of producing energy. The other issue about nuclear is when people go on about the "bomb", but the fact that many people overlook about nuclear weapons is that they have only ever been used once and that was when only one country in the world had access to them. The chances are is that nuclear weapons probably prevented a major conflict between the east and west. I think the idea which i came up with for using redundant oil rigs for geothermal may be worth exploring , then we may be in a position to not need nuclear as an option. However in the meantime nuclear is the only realistic option and how many of us will be happy in 10 or 20 years time with blackouts and soaring energy costs? nuclear wont last forever as geothermal also will not, but we need to do something about this now and stop letting the debate be hijacked by a minority before it is too late.

Posted By William As i have pointed out nuclear weapons have only ever been used once and that was when only one country had them. Things are far from perfect at this moment in time and in an ideal world there would be no need for nuclear energy, but there is at this moment in time, and obviously something needs to done about waste as for the carbon footprint of extracting material it would probably not be any more than manufacturing, siting and maintaining wind turbines. We need nuclear to give us some breathing space at the moment and our first priority should be not to increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and then look at reducing it. As you have pointed out nuclear energy wont last forever, but we only need it for a couple of decades whilst we develop new technology which will be clean. Anyone who stands in the way of this IS damaging the environment as they are not helping reduce carbon emissions in a responsible manner.

Posted By Ken Taylor I've only just found time to read this thread and would like to thank Chris for setting out some of the disadvantages of wind turbines. We have recently been reminded of the small power output of house-mounted turbines (particularly when compared with the purchase cost and the extravagant claims of some suppliers). As to the giant windmills, we have, so far, managed to defeat a proposal to mount a number of these in an area of outstanding natural beauty (AONB) at Wellow here on the Isle of Wight where they would have been mounted on concrete blocks the size of houses, exceeded the height of 'Big Ben' and chopped up numerous birds. As an island, we are surrounded by vast amounts of water that is constantly moving about (often with great force) and have higher than average sunshine but the 'quick-fix to satisfy targets' approach by buying land from a farmer and putting up monstrous windmills is still supported by many of William's 'tree huggers' irrespective of the environmental losses and the continuing need for an alternative back-up power source when the wind is inadequate. Another interesting dimension to these when land-based is one of fire safety. If a fire breaks out in the turbine, it is far too high and dangerous to be reached by firefighters so the normal procedure would be to let it burn. However experience has shown that this can lead to burning material being spread at times of high wind onto adjacent land - which may well contain crops or other plants in a readily combustible state. A company is now advertising a fixed automatic extinguishing system for these turbines to address the fire risk.

Posted By DaveW William, The evidence for the solar warming theory has been compelling for a few years but so was the evidence for C02 driven warming and before that our imminent entry into a new ice age. I've been kicking around for long enough to remember all three theories as you probably have too. I've also been around for long enough to have reached the conclusion that our global and solar climates are not as easily understood and predicted as "the experts" would sometimes have us believe. With that in mind and with a possibly slightly unhealthy and cynical approach to some of the science that is presented to us as laymen, I tend these days to make my prerogative; to protect and promote that which we still have left as best as I'm able by not viewing the resources that we and I used as some bottomless pit but as finite resources that should be used wisely and with due deference to environments. As a committed centre ground non-fanatical "tree hugger", I feel that this is the best that we can do given the constraints of confused science and confused experts who are, occasionally and as history clearly repeatedly demonstrates, often even sub-consciously guilty of being subject to political motivations. Ken, I'm pleased that you understand that not all "tree huggers" are blinded by superficialities and that some "Tree Huggers" including the official ones such as The BTO and The RSPB recognise the damage that some so-called environmentally friendly renewable resources represent to environments and oppose their inappropriate use accordingly. It's a shame that otherwise viable incentives and initiatives are so often hijacked by extreme right or left wing political agenda. So just briefly back to the original proposal; yes there are some extremist "tree huggers" that may be misguided enought to cause more harm than good, but these are generally not the main players in environmental protection, main players such as The EA, The BTO, The RSPB and even the now fairly moderate Greenpeace and Freinds of the Earth. The misguided damaging fanatics are in my experience those small independant groups or individuals that still subscribe to some outdated ideal of political anarchy. The main players, the "big boys" in the tree hugging league do not generally promote incentives that are damaging or, as far we are able to assess at this stage; counterproductive.

Posted By William I reckon you are an aberdonian Merv as looking at your bills and trying to get money back any way possible is a trate of people in the Aberdeen area, some people say it is fife where i am now based and they may also have a point when you look at the local MP's Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell. It is a couple of very good points though, about the solar panels though i was wondering, lets say no-one is in the house during the day and the electricity was going to waste, would it not be a good idea if you could in someway (don't know how not my area) sell it to the power company or use it to offset the other electricity you use later on in the day. From a safety point of view i doubt whether we could ever fully rely on renewable energy as can you imagine what would happen at heathrow when a dark cloud comes overhead and the control tower shuts down and they have someone with a wind up torch attempting to give Morse code to the pilot trying to tell him to circle until the cloud passes and the power comes back on. A bit of an amusing and extreme scenario, but the point i am making is that we need a steady and reliable supply of electricity to power items such as smoke alarms and emergency lighting and we could not rely on the renewable energy we have at the moment. Wood being used as a fuel is a good idea and is probably the most overlooked technology at the moment, it would be better to burn the trees and get some energy from them than to allow them to decompose and get no benefit.

Posted By DaveW William, Concerning Trees: "allow them to decompose and get no benefit". Sorry to be picky but a sustainable and environmentally sympathetic approach to woodland management encourages the existence of decomposing timber within a healthy woodland environment. That's were a healthy woodland eco-system begins; with the bacteria, fungi and invertebrates that form the basis of the food chain and that live largely on and within decomposing vegetation and timber. Standing deadwood and fallen deadwood are vital habitats to an enormous variety of species. A woodland that is cleared of decomposing timber quickly loses much of its biodiversity becoming comparitively sterile whilst a a well managed woodland that is managed to incorate natural levels of decomposing timber encourages a fast regeneration of natural biodiversity. Timber can be viewed as a carbon neutral energy source but such fuel for timber should be acquired via environmentally sympathetic means. This would generally be fresh cut timber and fallen timber used in roughly equal proportion within any limited environment and allowing that naturally proportionate quantities of live and decomposing timber remain within an environment. To clear a woodland of decomposing timber would not be an environmentally sympathetic approach to woodland management and "cropping". Woodland can be managed and "cropped" in an environmentally sypathetic manner though.

Posted By Dan dan Well this has certainly turned into a post and a half hasn't it maybe the forum should have a section on environmental impacts as some of you quite rightly say that the safety role quite often has an "E" attached to it, however we do not necessarily hold any form of qualification. The experience is built up over various encounters with the friendly environmental agency. I know I have been interviewed under caution twice for some mishaps my previous company got involved in "they wouldn't be told", I digress. Our current team perceives environmental warriors to emulate Swampy from the newbury bypass days, how far from the truth is that. Tree huggers, environmentalists etc etc call them what you like - thats the new safety, I remember teh hype from 96 and the birth of the "6" pack, safety was kicking off in a big way, well hello boys and girls Enviro is doing the same but even more so. thats where the money is going to be - and Im going sniffing for it lol - get qualified, get your membership before the dinosaurs start restricting access to their club!!!!