Originally Posted by Horace (Post 34929707)

6 Billion? Feh. You know the cost of bailing the banks out was £850 Billion right?

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34929684)

Nor do I have any children, and I sincerely doubt I ever will.

TBH, I'd have had more respect for Gordo if he'd put a couple of billion less into a fund for the third world, and instead put the balance to help fund the research into Nuclear Fusion being carried out in the UK. IMHO, all the other technologies being pushed on the worlds public are merely sticking plasters on an arterial bleeder.

If politicians where really sincere about wanting to tackle the human infulence on climate change, we'd be having a new Manhattan Program for Nuclear Fusion.... The fact that this is not on the cards means that we are screwed....

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34929718)

Personally, I think solar energy is the way to go. The sun is an (almost) endless supply of energy, that is more than sufficient to cater to the energy needs of the planet. A couple of solar panels on your roof won't do the job though.

I read in New Scientist a while ago about plans to harvest solar energy in space and then beam it back down to earth. Apparently, it was feasible, but not cost effective (yet). And if I recall correctly, it could potentially generate massive amounts of energy.

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34929722)

Yes, and I read that there is enough heavy matter to make three micro-singularities, and place then in orbit about the earth, and then use those to provide endless energy for human consumption.... Thats about as likely to happen as solar pannels and giant orbital mirrors/solar collectors....

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34929760)

Any sensible government would ensure that it can meet its own minimal energy needs. Rather than relying on "the market" to meet national energy needs from a purely profit driven motive... You only have to go back a couple of weeks to see EDF (I think it was) deciding not to build a new power station in the UK as its profits wouldn't be high enough at current prices.... Nice.... Lets let the lights go out, and have the country slip into anarchy (small possibility ofc), rather than the country ensuring we have secure energy supplies beyond 2014.... Politicians in the UK have this mantra running through their heads that market forces will always ensure that the needs of any and all markets will be met by the players in those markets. Given the last couple of years as an example, I'd say thats as utterly wrong as the self-regulatory nature of the internationl financial services sector....

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34929775)

maybe it's time to revisit nationalisation ? lessons learned and all that

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34929785)

Well.... If Norway, with a population of 5.5 million of so can run a nationalised oil industry, which thus far has made the Norwegian people an operating profit of mort than NK 2.5 trillion, I'd suggest that its more that possible to make to work....

Unfortunately in the UK, the moronic ass-hats in Westminister can't and wont run nationalised industries properly. They end up being political footballs to be screwed with for party political reasons. Run into the ground, and then sold off in bits, while the publics taxes continue to underwrite them. What a joke our leaders are....

Personally if I was running the country, I'd be throwing money, scientists, engineers and all sorts of technicians at Nuclear Fusion so that the UK would have total energy security. I'd ensure that once the technology was proven to be reliable and safe, that there would be the industrial infrastructure already in place that the fusion reactors could be fabricated in the UK. And we as a nation would be beholding to no-one else for the single most important glue that allows any 21st century nation to function (namely electricity). This new nationalised industry, that would be responsible for the construction, instillation and running of the Fusion Reactors would br run on the same model at Norways Statoil. With profits (once profits are made given the massive investment setting up this company/companies would cost) would all be directed into a "Fusion Fund", which would be similar to Norways "Oil Fund". Profit accumulates in the Fund, and the interest on those profits can then be used to pay for other things.... The important thing with the "Oil Fund" in Norway, is that by an act of the Norwegian Parliment, no government can skim off the underlying *profits* made by Statoil, unless Parliment itself votes to allow its use. Otherwise only the interest on the profits can be spent on social programs....

Ofc the above will never happen in the UK, because the politicians can't and won't allow it....

Originally Posted by danielf (Post 34929718)

Personally, I think solar energy is the way to go. The sun is an (almost) endless supply of energy, that is more than sufficient to cater to the energy needs of the planet.

Originally Posted by DaiNasty (Post 34929667)

I'm doing the planet a favour by eating animals. After all they produce all that nasty methane.

Originally Posted by Sparkle (Post 34929788)

I certainly agree with you there. All energy we use with the exception of nuclear (which includes geothermal), originated from the sun. Just think of all the tens of square thousands of miles of desert around the world that could be harnessed to provide all the energy we ever needed.
The problem isn't technology, its whether the generated energy would be cheaper than that supplied from oil or nuclear sources.
In a nut shell, cheap oil is preventing most other sources of energy which we could be using, from gaining a foothold in our energy economy.
There has never been an energy crisis, just an oil crisis.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34929787)

so you're saying our leaders haven't learned any lessons :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze (Post 34929804)

Dude, you couldn't beat the most simple of lessons into our politicians with a length of 2 x 4.... :(