The absolute highest estimate for the longevity coal resources that I've seen is 250 years, and the highest estimate for uranium about 50 years.

I noticed that here in Germany this year many are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the birth of Mozart. In that same timeframe from now there be no coal or uranium left. Fossil oil neither. However, new solar and tidal power-generating technologies are starting to bloom.

The future does not belong to the current minerals being removed from the ground to generate power.

Nuclear energy is not "safe". Radio active materials are intrinsically hazardous. The question is whether engineering can render the risk small enough over a long enough period for a large number of installations economically. I tend to go with Murphy's law but there are a number of Dr Panglosses out there. Examples of best practice in the world eg Finland hold little comfort when we know what the worst practice can be.

Incidently it is probably true that if waste could be embeded in solid rock deep enough it would pose little risk (though not safe), but though rock is a solid it is rarely unfractured or impermeable and there is more sources of water than rain (see: ground water)

Any further news on the wind-power front?

>>If consumption continues to increase, and windfarms continue to take thirty percent of that increase, aren't we looking at a situation where the earth will be entirely covered by whirring windmills, and they still cannot meet the demand?<<

Anybody?

>>exactly how many windmills [will we] need, where [will they] be sited, who will pay for them, and how will they possibly get planning permission from the council in time for 2020.<<

Or was it just a load of air?

Pericles. no idea about how many windmills are required. It is an excellent question and something that should be covered during the upcoming comprehensive energy debate.

To get planning permission I think counsels will have to get a share of the electricity revenues. Obviously they wouldn't end up in affluent coastal suburbs but those locations aren't candidates for other power stations either.

Why isn't this area ever discussed??

All the comments on the forum are fair enough but why isn't the economics of the recycling of radio-active waste ever logically considered based on the technological advances in this area.

Sure I guess we have all heard of the Aust Synroc process of combining radio-active waste into a cement like mixture that leaves the material relatively inert. Ok completely inert. Yet how about the "Browns Gas" processing of radio-active waste?? Surely a 97% reduction in radiation combined with a extra production of electricity deserves to be considered and taken into economic account.

Dipole reactors as a further processing of radio-active waste has to be also considered, and take into account the re-mixing of low grade waste with other minerals such as copper and then processed in masor laser furnaces to produce preciouse metals also has to be considered for its economic benefits.

The latest technological state of developments in this nuclear industry have to be taken into greater consideration in this debate.

Desalinate water pressure exists at 80 metres below sea level. So cut the costs of desalination in half by building desalination plants 80 metres below the surface of any water well, be it on land or at sea.
Let the gravity of thoughtful endevour lead us forward to Victory!!

Why exclude Finland from the suggested itnerary for Mr Howard of Nordic green economies. This would be certainly be educational for our pragmatic PM to see the 'real politik' that has led the Finnish government to increase its nuclear power capacity from .

Finland is building its fifth nuclear power plant in Lovisa which will be producing energy from 2009.Today 27 % of the electricity comes from nuearpower plants.

Climate policy is a major reason for the Finnish government support for the proposal, while its detractors supported a massive increase in natural gas use (from Russia) for electricity generation.

Considering the Russians predeliction for cutting of its gas supplies to excert political pressure it is a no-brainer.

For electricity, Finland is part of the deregulated Nordic system which faces shortages in the midterm. Denmark is relying on the base load from Swedish hydro electric power generation propped up by Finnis and Swedish nuclear power plants to safeguard its supply of power when the wind is not blowing. So Finland seems to be on the money here to.

Wind power can't solve a nation states power gneration capacity for that its much to fickle.