I agree with Chris, Nuclear is probably a neccessity at least as a stop gap, but the point is that if we focus on energy efficiency we probably dont even need any new plants. In my business I expect to drop usage by a further 30%+ from my usage as it stands today with at least 10% return on capital, likewise most homes and business could have a massive make over with a great return on investment, but the primary motivation is cost - so I welcome all the squealing at present.
Over the last year as I have become increasingly obsessed with energy efficiency I have noticed that there are heaps of easy wins out there in peoples homes and businesses - but we need a motivated Government (fat chance). On the oil issue we will go electric for transport so yes Nuclear power is relevant to the motorist, and yes we will need nuclear as the renewables are incapable of delivering power when required (often at night and in the morning when there is no sun for the case of PV)
The idea of the subsidised PV is nonsense - PV at present has an appalling return on capital, we should focus on energy efficiency and wind/tidal first which have at least some sensible rate of return. We should do the things with the best payback first. PV will come later when its cheaper per kWh

Not much according to what I've read - maybe 10 years. But then the stated reserves depend upon how hard people look for new supplies. As existing resources deplete and prices rise it becomes economically viable to spend more money and energy looking for new sources. How long before we start mining the Moon?

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/20737/?a=f

All assessments of future load/demand overlook the huge and well-informed demand that is about to explode out of the godfearin' houseowner's hurtin' pocket. Does anyone still doubt that that the public has finally switched on to the certainty of fuel price rising and rising (even if it plateaus briefly, if present doubling-in-6-months is due to 'speculators')? They already know it's going to hurt, and not even The Mail really believes it's in the govt's power to return to 'normal', when 'normal' is a five-fold increase in the last eight years. A year ago, talk of tenfold increase in ten years seemed scary, but now looks over-hopeful. A present domestic fuel bill of £1500 p.a. becomes at least £15,000 at today's prices, within ten years or less. A hotel with a £35,000 bill today - a third of a million p.a. within ten years. Householders in deep trouble, businesses going bust under crippling overheads, building societies and bank managers insisting on very serious fuel demand reduction before they'll even consider financing anything - who'd lend to an unreforming household or a business headed for certain trouble, relative to those who take necessary action and feel greatly relieved of expense, even less than now?

Aided by HIPs/EPCs, suddenly transformed from Euro-bureaucracy to vital info, the capital value of houses, of business premises, and of the businesses themselves occupying same, will within a year begin to discount the expected fuel cost, over say 5-8yrs, of this building compared to that one, at buy-sell time or new rental time. Eventually, the capital incentive will far outweigh the running-cost incentive, severe as the latter will be. As serious fuel demand reduction goes best hand-in glove with extensive refurb/extension/restructuring, low- or zero-fuel integrated with beauty/function improvement, almost but not quite two for the price of one, rising fuel cost will actually amount to a great freeing-up of the economics of building improvement. After decades of building improvement (other than splitting into multiple units) not really paying off in property development terms, suddenly, improvement hand-in-glove with low-or zero-energy measures will show terrific capital gain, while unimproved buildings will stagnate, drop in value, even become unsaleable at any price. A new negative-equity crisis - get out now, while you can - or be prepared to spend what it takes to go low- or zero-energy. A growing underclass freezing in unimproved slums, inadequately fuel-subsidised by govt.

Anyway, all this adds up to an about-to-explode demand for serious, widespread fuel demand reduction in buildings. The full zero-fuel radical option will be strongly demanded, completely outpacing present housebuilders'-convenience and DG-industry-feeding ways to shave a few %age points without rocking the boat too much. National Building Regs and international post-Kyoto treaties will be left in the dust of the public demand for relief from pain in the pocket. Post-Bush America will lead strongly. Britain will follow US and EU myopically, but follow we will. China will manufacture the bolt-on kit, but increasingly it will be understood that the design of the building itself, as remodelled, will do the solar capture and interseasonal storage, with hardware playing a merely supporting role.

And buildings' fuel demand will drop from nearly half, to a fraction of national demand. No other sector is so ripe for low- or zero-fuel measures. Transport - marginal only. Industrial process - the next big potential, by closing the energy-flow loops, so one processes' waste become another's input, over wide-area networks.

So national fuel demand is about to drop sharply, soon. Renewables will look much more capable of filling the gap, and nuclear will be seen to be un-needed, as well as too late, other than as fulfilment of TonyB's left-over early-days agreement to buy American nukes, the price to be allowed to remain America's best friend.

Anyone know how they decide when a power station is at the end of its useful life? Are they like cars, i.e. they last on average 15 years but if you look after them you can keep them on the road much longer. I'm wondering if some of these closure dates on the older nuclear and coal stations are set in stone or are they just arbitrary and can be extended. For example, I spoke to someone last week who works at Radcliffe on Soar, a coal fired power station near Nottingham. He told me they had just received the "all clear" for a 20 year extension to the operating life. I suspect we might see a few of these stations operating a bit longer than expected rather than letting the lights go out, i.e. until we have built whatever is to replace them.

Indeed, design closure dates have been postponed for a number of power stations, but it is only a postponement of the inevitable.
Here are a couple of vaguely related articles:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3486
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3130

Sun, Sea and Nuclear.

With all the flat and sloping commercial roof space available, why not rent area for PV.

The sea movement systems are effective and we are never far from the sea anywhere in UK and its always moving (also wind farms in the sea only!)

And finally nuclear, the technology is so advanced in safety and efficiency (note no storage comment) that smaller sites the size of submarine generators could run the demand of a village or small town. The technology has been said to be able to generate power for units as small as a car radio. We need to let this technology develop by building new plants which in turn has the possibility to solve all kinds of energy problems.

All these methods will reduce the need to transport energy via cables getting rid of ugly pylons and making them more efficient. Reducing road and fossil fuel transport. Cars need to upgrade to batteries with an infrastructure to support it and as everyone is aware, reduce energy demand and insulate.

I don't think oil is over priced. In inflation adjusted terms it is not very far in advance of the peak in 1980 and we've used an awful lot of oil in the last 28 years and found a lot less than we've used. Also, it is becoming more widely appreciated that the inflation numbers in the US, and elsewhere, are manipulated and have been since the 1970s. We may currently be well below the 1980 peak in REAL inflation adjusted terms.

If this is a bubble then show me the bulging inventories, show me the new supply coming on line to replace the 4% depletion rate on existing fields and the annual 2% increase in demand, show me the quoted energy stocks on excessive earnings multiples. There will be a pull back before the next leg up but this is no bubble it's all about supply not keeping pace with demand and we'll need much higher prices to bring the two back into line.

Joe, my post was prompted by hotelRefurber's comment that commodities were in a bubble, a view I don't share. Any pull back in prices is an opportunity to buy the shares of companies that produce commodities in my opinion.

I think we are seeing the start of a move of venture capital money into alternatives and not before time. I think it is still a bit early for the small investor to get involved until it becomes a bit clearer which technologies are going to be the big winners. Having said that, when "Peak Oil" is on everyones' lips and in every paper and magazine there is bound to be a surge of money into the sector and big profits for nimble speculators as companies go to crazy valuations. As they say "a rising tide floats all boats".

Don't worry, when those wicked speculators get caught and punished, oil will return to 'normal'. Normal being $20/barrel forever until 2000, at that point becoming a very smooth exponential curve reaching $90 at 2007-4Q, $95 at 2008 -1Q, should be $100 at 2008-2Q (now) but actually $130+ now. So by 2008-4Q (Xmas), if the deny-ers and blamers get their way they'll be happy it's dropped back to a 'normal' $115, $145 by following Xmas etc .... that's what 'normal' is.

Posted By: SimonHRe technology investing - electric motors are a good bet. Doesn't matter whether the electric is hydrogen or battery powered - they're the bit that pushes you along.

With Agni making a really good one. Not sure of the company's status, though, as to whether you can buy any shares. They're in India.