I did not say it wouldn't be difficult to avoid – but it still remains that there is no inevitability about it.

TJ – you are in the realms of fantasy. There is no feasible way you can attain the g CO2 / kw figues an old nuclear plant can achieve by burning coal. You have construction of the plant, you have carbon sequestration measures that have to use energy by the laws of thermodynamics, then you have the CO2 being generated day after day as you burn coal.

If you think we can reduce our energy consumption by more than 50% (seeing as I keep stating, ALL our electricity accounts for less than this figure) then you're living in cloud cuckoo land…

while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

So now using your crystal ball you're certain we'll crack a form of power that is appreciably lower in carbon than nuclear, whilst still having the scope for the sheer amount of electricity we need? The closest currently on the radar at all is nuclear fusion. This was 50 years away when it was first touted more than 50 years ago. It's if anything, further away now than it was then.

wrong There are many other solutions to reducing energy usage in domestic heating and transport

Which are…

1) Drive less – yes, that's worked well so far with years of being told to, and encouraged by ever increasing taxes on fuel and car ownership. In addition, we're now also expected to commute further to work, and be more flexible about taking jobs elsewhere. Both my partner and I have a 45min commute by car, in opposite directions. Despite trying, neither of us can find a job closer. I suspect a 45 min / 30 mile commute is considerably shorter than many when you consider the country as a whole.

2) Move goods around less – ditto the above. Where was the PC you're using now made?

Both these energy uses will require more and more electricity. At present, charging a g-whizz at night would use more electricity for transport than I do…

3) More insulation at home. This reduces the need to heat, but when gas runs out we will either have to go back to burning coal, or use electricity to some extent. The reason we started using coal was because there weren't enough trees 200 years ago – there certainly aren't now

Whats that wooshing noise? something right over your head.

You are missing my point completely or deliberately ignoring it.

I do not say what you claim I say. You keep making these assertions without evidence

This has become totally pointless.

edit – I'll just pick up on one point

Drive less – yes, that's worked well so far with years of being told to, and encouraged by ever increasing taxes on fuel and car ownership.

car driving is cheaper now than at any time since the 70s in comparison to the average wage.

Any idea when are we expected to reach 'peak uranium'?

Zokes you make some good points about energy use, based on current practices, but even if we go nuclear that is a finite resource.

I know a lot of the public still believe we are on some unswavering course towards a jetsons/star trek future, with infinite energy on tap. But assuming fusion never properly works, at some point we have to face the limits of our surroundings.

I do not say what you claim I say. You keep making these assertions without evidence

You claim we can make reductions in energy usage. I then agree, but point out that as more than 50% of the UK's current energy isn't electrically-based, in all probability we'll need more electricity generation to make up for the gas and petrol we won't be able to burn for much longer.

You then doggedly respond by saying that we will make further cuts. You decline to provide us with examples of how this may be done.

Out of all the technologies feasible to produce large amounts of low-carbon energy, nuclear fission is one of the few currently available. You suggest instead of that we invest the money in finding something new. What do we do in the mean time? You think there's an energy-gap looming now? Just wait until 20 years time if we don't build more nuclear power stations now.

Or we could build coal, but as I keep saying, and you keep dodging – 1bn projected deaths attributable to climate change. At least if there's a nuclear disaster in the west, it would be us who paid for our energy usage. What have the Bangladeshis done to deserve their entire country being inundated by rising sea levels?

car driving is cheaper now than at any time since the 70s in comparison to the average wage.

So make it MORE expensive. You then price those who can't afford it off the road, leaving only those who can. Rather elitist don't you think?

There is no other way approaching reduction in car usage and transportation in a democracy. You state the need for political will, frankly there's less chance of a government that puts forwards plans to stop us driving staying in power, than a nuclear reactor near you melting down. Maybe in China, where we'd be told to stop driving and lump it, but not in the western world. Personally, I prefer even Gordon Brown's unsavoury style of government to the totalitarian regime in Bejing.

Any idea when are we expected to reach 'peak uranium'?

Ever heard of Thorium?

I know a lot of the public still believe we are on some unswavering course towards a jetsons/star trek future, with infinite energy on tap. But assuming fusion never properly works, at some point we have to face the limits of our surroundings.

I quite agree, but there seems little point in making it sooner for our country and plunging us back into the dark ages. Someone else will use all the uranium if we choose not to, and maybe someone else (and it was someone else on the two previous occasions) will suffer a major nuclear incident. Sinking the ship for a ha'p'orth o' tar seems a little daft

while spending the money you want to spend on nukes in research and development of the next generation of tech

Which is going to come up with an energy generation method which is not only renewable and as reliable as nuclear for supplying base load, but also far shorter lead time? You might be happy with betting the lot on your lottery numbers coming up, but most of us would like to be able to use electricity in 10 or 20 years time – for which we need to start building new energy generation capacity now (not just researching speculative unproven stuff). I don't think anybody on here has anything against the idea of developing better renewable technology, but realistically what you're dreaming of is decades away from being ready to build in sufficient quantities. Nobody is saying either that nuclear is the answer to all our future power needs – it will however keep us going until such time as new technologies are mature.

So make it MORE expensive. You then price those who can't afford it off the road, leaving only those who can. Rather elitist don't you think?

I suppose we could go all centralist and give us all a travel allowance but that would restrictive and controlling. Whatever happens though people will be restricted, whenther by self control, government or the planet running out of resources-food and energy.

Whatever happens though people will be restricted, whenther by self control, government or the planet running out of resources-food and energy.

The only point out of those three likely to happen would be the final one. Little chance of self control, and even less of a limp-wristed government with a view on the next election instigating anything that restrictive…

There is a fourth way – we plan NOW for 20-30 years ahead when oil is becoming scarce, and make sure there is enough electricity generation capacity to fulfil probable future requirements for the needs of H2 and battery-powered transport. At least then there will be a low-carbon alternative to petrol – admittedly less of it, but then at least the government couldn't be accused of just watching oil run out and not trying to prepare alternatives.

So we're advanced enough to build all this clever stuff like cars, computers, planes etc. but when it comes to using them it's back to behaving like animals, with no forethought? Always depresses me that.

As long as massive energy use is no more taxing than flicking a switch, or gently pressing your right foot, I suppose people will continue to think what we do today is normal.

As long as massive energy use is no more taxing than flicking a switch, or gently pressing your right foot, I suppose people will continue to think what we do today is normal.

Worse than that – it's what a lot of the developing world aspires to.

Very interesting thread, I've read it all. I don't have anything to add, but thank you to all participants, I feel like aI know a little more now.

zokes – Member

Worse than that – it's what a lot of the developing world aspires to.

And ultimately that is what will sink us. If we in the UK all go back to caves burning wood tomorrow it will be no use unless china and india don't start using energy like we do

And don't get me started on the USA 5% of the worlds population and 25% of the worlds man made greenhouse gas emissions / energy usage yet no will to do anything about it.

I hope the UK can be a beacon for the future to show the way forward and we have the opportunity to be a world leader in developing alternative solutions of all sorts. We have the expertise and the skills.

It seems to me that one problem that is overlooked with talk of reducing energy usage is that there are so many societal factors that would make this difficult. To take just one, the high level of family breakdown leads to a demand for more housing, at a lower occupancy level (i.e., the average UK child has two bedrooms, one at mum's and one at dad's), with all the extra travel that that incurs. What are environmentalists doing to ensure that families find it easier to stay together in one household?

You may think this sounds like a daft question, but really it's not. There are any number of external factors driving people's life choices which lead to energy consumption (why is it that so many people need to commute so far to work for example), and no amount of turning off video recorders or wifi routers at night is going to address that.

er, yay for nukes?

environmental disasters following oil leaks etc. aren't unknown, we still use oil.

burning coal releases massive quantities of radioactive material, we still burn coal.

(and good old non-radioactive air pollutions kills many thousands every year, we still all burn stuff).

nuclear power doesn't strike me as any more or less 'safe' than the alternatives.

as for the waste; we have mountains / rock formations that haven't moved in billions of years, when it comes to the really nasty waste we've only got to hide it away for a few thousand years – a brief moment in geologic terms.

Can't be arsed to read all the above comments but just wanted to say

Yay

I don't think we are going to be using more energy in the future.

Unfortunately there is no technology that is going to come anywhere near replacing oil any time soon. Probably before we get new nuclear power online things are going to start getting sticky re' oil. We probably have already had peak-oil but that has been disguised/mitigated by the credit crunch. We'll be lucky to maintain our electricity supply and the idea of having enough extra to replace our current transport is a joke.

That's one reason I don't want more nuclear, because without oil we won't be able to support such a complex society of specialists and I worry that in time nuclear power stations will become too complex to support properly.

If you don't think that is possible have a look at what happened to the USSR when it collapsed. As oil starts to run out there's no guarantee that our society won't break down in the same way. It would be nice to think we'd end up like Cuba, but maybe we'll end up like Chechnya.

China and India are not going to develop in the way we have. There are too many of them and not enough oil to go around. They might fight us for what's left but probably not as even if we (in the west) weren't using it there still wouldn't be enough to bring them up to western standards of living. They will be better off trying to limit the expectations of their own populations.

So I don't think we are going to be driving round like we do now in 10 or 20 years time. 1 litre of oil will do approximately equivalent to 70 man hours work. As oil becomes more scarce we're going to be less and less likely to use that transporting big lumps of metal around – we'll use it for something important.

If you really want to prepare for the future, I think you should find yourself a house/job where you don't need a car to commute. And where you've got a network of friends that think the same as you about the future. Then start trying to cut down your energy usage.

Some people make the point that cutting energy use won't make a difference globally. But even if that were true it will still make a huge difference to individuals, who won't suffer the same amount of shock if(when) fuel prices go through the roof and our completely fragile (even if highly efficient) transport system goes tits up, as hopefully they'll already be some way towards being weaned off it.

I'm ducking out of this discussion now – already spent far too much time here that could have been spent more usefully chopping logs.

I'm pro-Nuclear, I know several people who work in the industry and many discussions later I believe that they are a fairly safe way of generating power and definitely the answer in the short-term.

One thing I will say, having read the whole thread, is TJ repeatedly states it’s all about political willpower with regards to reducing energy usage. That however, relies on said political party being voted in, how many of the average joe will vote for a party that places restrictions that I gather a large majority will view as unfair/unnecessary? I know that I probably wouldn't, and most of them simply don't care enough to even read up on the subject.

Zokes – thanks for the links of Thorium reactors. Highly interesting diversion to work!

Haven't read it, but this has been recommended

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Haven't read all the posts but some may find this a good read if very scary of what happened at Chernobyl.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

That's one reason I don't want more nuclear, because without oil we won't be able to support such a complex society of specialists and I worry that in time nuclear power stations will become too complex to support properly.

If I'm reading correctly you're arguing that we shouldn't build more energy sources because when we start running out of energy sources we won't be able to support these new energy sources 🙄

If I'm reading correctly you're arguing that we shouldn't build more energy sources because when we start running out of energy sources we won't be able to support these new energy sources

That's what I thought, but I'd given up arguing with the blind, deaf and dumb anti-nuclear lobby some time ago