The current situation: Oil and gas will run out in the next 50 or so years. 'Oil peak' - the point at which oil production will peak and from that point forward will decline - will happen in the next 10 years. There is enough coal under the ground to last well into the next century. 'Renewables' such as wind and solar are way too early in their development cycles to even begin to take the strain of mass energy production.

I haven't mentioned nuclear because this, I feel, is where the short term future lies, and that I thought I would never say, even 5 years ago.

The green lobby can shout and scream all they like about the current ills of energy supply. As much as I agree with many of their sentiments we simply can't switch off the fossil fuel based energy grid and get those trusty renewable energy farms pumping their energy in its place - there would be global meltdown in seconds. Our governments, all in the pockets of the major fossil fuel extractors, are of course responsible for this fact. They have known for decades that oil is finite and would run out sometime this century - that coal is a pretty dirty way to produce energy and that nuclear fission reactors are not the best use of nuclear energy. There has been precious little research into alternatives, therefore the reason why we cannot simply switch off our dependency on oil, gas and coal and watch our so-called greener systems take over. Ergo why a few, very rich and powerful people want to keep things exactly as they are.

So if we all buy into the global warming theory (incidentally, I don't but that's something for another thread perhaps) what alternatives are there? In spite of the claims of their supporters, wind turbines require more energy to build and maintain than they create. So how is this green? Hydro dams cause mayhem to marine ecosystems and though the energy produced far exceeds the energy needed to construct and maintain, the environmental damage is pretty huge. There are other studies into alternatives such as tidal and wave power but as yet they are all in their infant stages and are nowhere near a position where we could start to use them in place of even one coal, gas or oil fired power station. I won't go further on my opinion of gas fired power stations except to say 'WHY??'

Also everyone has to realise that all energy creation has an environmental cost. There is no 'green' panacea in spite of what some lobbies would have you believe - the only way to go truly green is to switch off the power grid, stop driving and flying and go back to the caves, so to speak - and that's never going to happen unless we have a major event such as world war, or a natural disaster similar to the one which accounted for the dinosaurs. What has to be done is the costs of each energy creation system needs to be ascertained and then debate how best to progress - and yes, I fully realise that is fraught with its own difficulties, especially political ones. Going back to the days of one electric socket in every house and everywhere being lit by candles isn't going to happen, so people's expectations have to be factored in to the equation. We all need education on how to use energy more efficiently - this should be a top priority. It's not a case of stopping people from using things, more a case of why leave it on if you don't need to?

So here's what I think should be done. Solar panel systems should be installed on every new house and every home owner should be given grants to install them. They won't work 24/7 but it is still better than nothing and we will always have sunlight. This should also apply to industrial areas. They aren't as obtrusive as wind farms and will reduce the need of such a large national energy grid. Whether we like it or not we will have to build some nuclear fission power stations if we want to turn off coal, gas and oil fired ones. There is simply nothing 'green' out there ready to take the mantle. If we want to make a real reduction in carbon emissions in 10-15 years there is no alternative and we will have to live with the legacy they will bring with them - that being the land they sit on is effectively dead for a thousand years.

Governments the world over need to unite, bring the best scientific minds together and research greener alternatives, giving them the same kind of resources that have been afforded to other major energy projects such as nuclear. There should be no boundaries to this research so, for instance, if a nuclear fusion reactor can be made viable and is proven to leave little if no waste as has been suggested then it should happen. The ITER project in France is very exciting, maybe this holds the key but again, the costs must be examined because the last thing we need are dozens or power station sites rendering land unfit for human habitation for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. We do need to look at whether local energy distribution would be better than a monolithic national energy system. For example water wheels are a great way to produce energy and in small villages this could be another alternative.

Recently debate has surfaced about whether DC power distribution should be reconsidered. This was proposed and implemented by Thomas Edison over a century ago but it’s inherent limitations of massive losses over distance plus the size of conductors needed to facilitate distribution were too much of a hurdle given the technology of the time, thus why AC is the preferred power source of the energy grid system. However, locally generated DC, if it was proven to be a viable method, is far more sensible given that the vast majority of electrical items we buy run off a DC voltage. It must also be taken into account the conversion from AC to DC actually costs a lot of energy – some 10-15% of all energy used is simply lost by this very process, thus why the debate has reopened.

There is no easy answer to this. Our Governments have sold us short and are making us pay for their incompetence and amorality – namely taking large payments from fossil energy companies in exchange for keeping the status quo and silencing those who want to make a difference. We knew most of what we know now 30 years ago, all that has changed is that most of this information is in the public domain thanks to the internet and a few very passionate voices. Global warming is being used as the stick to make us cough up more tax to ‘combat’ the issue but the money collected is simply frittered away on ‘pet projects’ which contribute little, if anything to the environmental cause and, as a UK resident paying 80% tax on the fuel I buy for my car, I find this reprehensible to say the least. We, the public, are going to start paying real hard for these mistakes in the not too distant future – energy rationing of some description is coming to your door within the next ten years unless somebody within the corridors of power has the balls to start allocating serious resources to the growing energy crisis NOW. Do I see this happening? Sadly, no.

Finally, I’d just like to say that, in spite of my extreme scepticism about the theories behind global warming, I do think things should change. If we can do it more cleanly and with better sustainability why shouldn’t this be so? We should make our planet a cleaner place to live because, aside from the as yet unproven global warming aspect, surely we don’t want to be filling our air and waterways with poisonous gases and effluent? This should be a time of great opportunity for science to provide the solutions. However, I think our pawns of Government and their chess masters will have the final say and, once again, we will pay for it in the long term.

--------------------