Ah, the good old nuclear v renewables v fossil fuels argument.
Well, to declare my own interest, I think the future lies with a mixture of (a) nuclear (fusion) (b) energy efficiency and (c) and local power generation (e.g. solar panels on roofs helping to heat hot water etc.).
The current problems facing us regarding energy security are threefold: ignorance, political and economic.
Ignorance first. Mention nuclear power to most people, and the first thought which probably pops into their mind is “Chernobyl”. Followed closely by glow in the dark, three headed seven armed babies. The reason for this is simple. Most people (a) have very little scientific knowledge or understanding, and don't understand the first thing about nuclear power (usually through a lack of education or lack of interest), and (b) don't realise that the Chernobyl reactor was built primarily to produce fissile material for the Soviet nuclear weapons programme. Civilian power generation was simply an afterthought. The first British nuclear reactor, Windscale, was also used primarily to create fissile material for the UK nuclear weapons programme.
Some people are currently getting excited by the possibilities of Thorium as a fuel for nuclear fission power generation. Little do most people realise Thorium was what was originally proposed to power nuclear power stations, but was not used in the end because it was not suitable for producing weapons grade nuclear material. Hence Uranium and Plutonium were used instead.
The other side to this is the issue of storing nuclear waste, with lots of talk bandied about that nuclear waste from a nuclear power station stays radioactive for “tens of thousands of years”. Yes, that is true. But for how much of that waste, and for how long, is it dangerously radioactive? The fact is, most nuclear waste is far less radioactive than what you get naturally from standing outside on a sunny day, or travelling in an airplane, or for the smokers amongst you, from inhaling a lungful of tobacco smoke.
The next point is that people try to argue against nuclear on the basis of old nuclear reactor types and designs. You can see this in action in this thread. Menace says “well built modern reactor”, and then Bart tries to knock his argument down by saying “A nuclear plant near my place reported alrdy 16 incidents since it's launch 30 years ago.” He then mentions another, 35 year old reactor.
I hardly think a 30 year old nuclear power station represents the cutting edge of nuclear technology. Just think how far cars have come on in 30 years for example. This is the standard mistake most people make with nuclear power. They base their views on the performance of reactors which are often over 20 or more years old, and completely ignore current developments in reactor design, which (amongst other things) incorporate multiply redundant failsafes.
People also say that nuclear power is inefficient, and without subsidies, would be totally uneconomic. And yet we have Paul Golby, Chief Executive of E.On stating that without the massive subsidies they get for building them, wind turbines are not economic. See here for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2005/03/26/ccwind26.xml
So nuclear may be expensive. But this is because the cost of nuclear energy already includes allowances for decommissioning, waste storage and transport, pollution, etc. Decommissioning costs are not currently factored into any other form of power generation. The “carbon credits” scheme is really a belated attempt to factor into the cost of fossil fuel power generation the vast pollution pumped into the air by coal, oil and gas fired power stations.
If you asked me whether I'd rather live next to a nuclear power station (possible risk of radioactive leak) as against a coal fired one (definite risk of serious lung disease), I know what I'd chose.
As to wind farms, Scotland currently gets about 35-40% (depending on whose figures you prefer) of all its electricity from just two nuclear power stations – Torness in Edinburgh and Hunterston B in Glasgow. Strathclyde University did a study a while back which concluded that to replace this capacity with wind farms, you'd need to cover an area over 3 times the combined size of Edinburgh and Glasgow cities with wind farms. i.e. A sizeable proportion of the habitable area of Scotland (note the word “habitable” - much of Scotland is too remote / rugged etc for human habitation).
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/01-02/RE_info/interesting.htm
As an interesting exercise, check how much of its electricity England currently gets from Scotland and France – both of which countries produce a large proportion of their own power needs from nuclear.
I could go on and on debunking all the standard myths about how nuclear is dangerous, expensive, etc, but that's an argument for private correspondence.
Political point next. Really tied in to the ignorance point. Politicians have vested interests – the only time they will tell people the truth is when the lights have gone out – not before. What is needed to resolve the energy problems we are facing is political will. With most politicians having the attention span of a gnat, being more interested in re-election and feathering their own nests, no wonder nothing ever gets done in time!
The other big issue is tax. Governments the world over are chronically addicted to taxes. The real reason that local power generation (solar panels on roof etc) hasn't taken off is because if people are generating their own electricity “for free” from the sun and the wind, it is hard for governments to justify taxing this. The current setup suits governments – large companies and large, fixed power generation infrastructure which are easy to locate and tax. Justifying tax on self generated power is far harder, and governments know this.
Economic next. Germany has lots of windmills. Yet, the power they produce is intermittent. To get a certain stable amount of power from wind, you need to install more turbines than the nominal number you need to generate a particular amount of electricity. If Germany's wind power program is so good, why have they not got rid of all their other regular power plants? Answer – because wind, like most renewables, doesn't supply a steady or reliable enough “base load” to meet the country's demand.
Furthermore, if Germany has so much great wind power, why are they so chronically dependant on Russian natural gas? (And hence willing to overlook Russia's military adventurism and appalling record on human rights, simply to ensure continuity of gas supply).
The other issue facing people is the vast extent of the current fossil fuel energy infrastructure. Think of all the oil tanker ships, gas storage depots, millions of cars etc, which would instantly become worthless if people stopped using fossil fuels. There's a lot of vested interest in protecting the money invested in this infrastructure.
Frankly, the problem is stark, and people have two choices (I'm not counting the status quo as a serious option). One – go with renewables, and then find you have to drastically curb energy use – this means in winter, no light after it gets dark, far less heating in the home, none of the labour saving devices people are used to, no TV, computers, consoles, cars, scientific or medical progress, blablabla. To cut a long story short, basically back to the middle ages.
Two- realise that renewables may have their use, but will never supply the “base load” required. Therefore, build nuclear (fission) plants now, whilst investing massively in nuclear fusion technology.