Quote:
Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad  But a substantial number of people seem to have this somewhat romantic belief that our electrical needs can be fulfilled using wind/wave power as a large percentage of the solution.
Yes, we need a fully coherent energy policy, incorporating all of the technologies. Wind power can, and should, play its proper part, (but not at the expense of irreplacable wilderness landscape), and yes, solar power will undoubtedly find much more widespread use in years to come.
In the interim, we should be gearing up for the only truly viable means of producing the bulk of the required amount of electricity. And, whether people like it or not, that is nuclear.
. |
I agree with you up to a point mike , but the oft overlooked point about nuclear is that its fuel supply isnt infinite either. While there is "plenty" of uranium at the present rate of usage, if it was our prime or only source of energy there is only enough for arround 60 years of use (or less if demand increases)
so in the not too distant future we could be out of fossil fuel
and out of uranium. If we havent spent the intervening time heavily researching both alternative and fussion , which with a short termist system of government is not likely, then we (or our children / grand children) will be up the proverbial creek , sans paddle.
The real key to a coherent energy policy is not therefore to build more reactors to meet our current energy demand but to
use less energy and thus hopefull eek out the remaining finite reserves whether nuclear or fossil - with appropriate carbon capture- whilst also vigourously reseraching other options.