Originally Posted by Stuart C

Not quite sure I agree with that assessment bearing in mind that I read a few years back that we had enough coal to last maybe 200 years, and that was considered an optimistic estimate, and was made when our power requirements were much lower.

The problem is, we need to do one of two things. Increase our power generation, or reduce the power we use.

Now, bearing in mind the fuss that seems to have occured because the government is now requiring that people use energy efficient bulbs, and they ask that people switch something off at the mains rather than use Standby mode, which is easier?

If we opt to increase Power Generation, we still have problems.

Renewable Energy.: Very nice. Very planet friendly. Unfortunately massively inefficient. No one wants to live next door to a windfarm large enough to power even a small town (they are huge, and require lots of large, noisy wind turbines). Solar power suffers a similar problem (well, it's silent, but still requires an awful lot of space). Wave power has (I believe) been known to cause problems for sea based life forms.

Expensive to exploit.

Coal/Fossil Fuels
Limited supply. Can be exploited relatively cheaply, but causes a lot of pollution (including the aforementioned acid rain).

Nuclear

Can produce a lot of power from very little fuel. As long as it is maintained properly is apparently quite environment friendly. Unfortunately, if it is not maintained properly, can leave large tracts of land uninhabitable for decades, if not centurys (three mile island, chernobyl).