tony sayer wrote:
I have noticed that you tend to think that we are looking for a single
answer to our energy needs, and vilify anything that can't do that. In
your case its nuclear. Like oil, whichever non-renewable fuel you opt
for *will* run out. I agree that we need nuclear but we also need as
wide a range of energy sources as we can make work. The sun is an
obvious source, even if not to you. When you think of solar methods you
assume they will be stuck in the present. We are at the Newcomen steam
engine stage of solar - very poor efficiency and rather expensive at
present. It'll never fly! But there is a survival imperitive and lots of
money to be made, so you can be sure that the solar methods in twenty,
perhaps even ten, years time will be greatly better than now. What we
need is a wide mix of sources, with as high a percentage of renewables
as is feasible.


I don't think for a moment that renewables could cope with what the
worlds demands are likely to be when the Oil gets that low. Unless we
are going to have a sea change in the way we work and behave and
expect...

Precisely. If renewables cant do the whole job, or even more than a
small faction of the job, and MUST be backed up with fossil fuelled
stations, because there isn't enough hydro in Europe to back them up,
nor ever will be, then what on earth is the point of having any?
The nuclear solution fully replaces fossil fuel. Renewables cant do that.

And cost far far more.

Since we patently cant do without nuclear, we have to take on the safety
and waste issues. Once we have taken those on, why on earth do we need
renewables?