The prime minister said:

"We are already seeing how the way we produce and use energy is affecting the environment, with carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels raising temperatures around the globe."

Mass burn incinerators called energy from waste plants, will produce as much carbon as new coal-fired power stations.

Sylvia J Gray, Seaford, East Sussex

Steve, Aberdeen. No problem with the nuclear power station here. I regularly caravan near the one near Dunbar, and want to retire to the west of Cumbria, where they have one as well. We can then have all the jobs here that you used to have in Aberdeen to support the oil industry, and this will be for far more people than would be provided for by some inefficient windfarms.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

There is no need to worry abou energy. Our government has had 10 years to pepare a sound energy policy for the next 20 years at least and will of course have done so. That's why we elect the best and wisest people in our society to make these decisions for us. The only sanction we have is to impeach politicians who deliberately and negligently do not plan ahead. But they wouldn't do that, would they?

Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines

Energy policy is as important as Defence,10 years in power and the truth is starting to dawn on him as he leaves office.What about Defence itself w,hich has been scaled down as well,what about Farming,we are now a net importer of milk.
Instead of all these lovely sounding policies that have been the hallmark of NULabour they have neglected the major duties of a government,to defend and feed its population.
The problem with Nuclear power has been the disposal of the waste which no one has a real solution for.
Solar is ok for water heating but no good in winter,Geo thermal is not really talked about but is good for heating/cooling houses,wind is ok when windy(why not put them by motorways,as in Holland)and wave power has only just started on the small scale here.Biomass or use of waste is growing but there seems to be too many different bodies vying for the business.
Government should be giving major incentives to save power/heat/lighting etc to get it all moving.

Nigel Wheatcroft, Wimbledon, U.K.

Australia has the biggest reserves of natural uranium deposits (24%), followed by Kazakhstan (17%) and Canada (13%).

Canada is the biggest exporter of "yellow cake" (U3O8), the basic input to the nuclear fuel cycle for producing enriched uranium oxide (UO2) for civil NPPs; followed by Australia and Niger.

I don't see a risk of either Canada or Australia refusing to supply the UK or France with yellow cake for the forseeable future.

The reserves which are discussed are known as Reasonably Assured Resources (RARs) based on an average price of $80 per Kg of uranium. There are many more lower-grade or less easily accessed deposits which are known about which would become viable at a higher price. In any case at the current rate of consumption there is enough 'cheap' uranium to last between 50 and 100 years, not allowing for the more efficient new reactor designs which generate more electricity per kg of uranium and produce less radioactive waste.

Andrew Whiting, Birmingham, UK

Richard Crow - Warsaw

Water - According to my research, the following is true:-

Great Britain has a surface area of 229,957 square kilometres, and has an average annual rainfall of 1.080 metres. The total volume of rain falling on Great Britain in any one year is therefore approximately 250 cubic kilometres.

The 2004 estimate by the Environment Agency for total water abstraction for public water supply was 17.2 million cubic metres per day, equating to just over 6 cubic kilometres per year. This figure is for the UK, including Northern Ireland.

I appreciate that large volumes of rainwater are just not capable of being appropriated for public use, but can you convince me that our problem is genuinely that we CAN'T collect enough fresh water to satisfy our demand, and is not just that to do so is technically simple, but requires sizeable investment in water supply infrastructure?

I just don't like having the wool pulled over my eyes by politicians, that's all.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

Why don't we just pay for our energy and water use on a sliding scale in the same way that we pay income tax? Everyone would have an allowance and after that the more they use the more they pay per unit/litre instead of the current system that appears to penalise low users.

CA, Basingstoke, UK

The anti nuclear people need to realise that many of their preferred methods of meeting the UK's energy demands will simply not be enough. Wind farms lie still or are only able to generate part of their potential unless there is a fairly stiff breeze (not a 365/24/7 occurrence). Tidal Power needs years of development. Other methods (ie geothermal) have localised application and many others are simply too expensive and risky for anyone with brains and money to contemplate.

The government's total lack of an energy policy since being voted in and reluctance now to spend money, as other EU countries ie Germany and Denmark, have leaves us all with very few options. In the light of the Russian's use of energy as a policy tool, nuclear has to be considered unless Greenpeace et al are going to persuade us to stop using as much energy. Still, if everybody works together to stop any action, the lights will go off by themselves.

Brave new, dark, world.

Lee, London, England

Ben, York. There are proposals for windfarms offshore in Essex and the West Coast of Scotland

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

Denmark have constructed wind farms at sea. Whhy don't we?

Ben, York,

Tony Blair's comments about new nuclear power stations that HAVE to be built is almost as incorrect as that forty five minute warning that allowed him to take us to war.

Lets get a few things straight. the existing Nuclear stations are all located on the coasts (as they have to be cooled) with seriously rising sea levels most of these power stations WILL BE UNDER WATER and so will have to be decommissioned at huge cost before that happens. You can't just cover them in concrete and forget them for a thousand years.

Wind farms are hated where ever they are erected on land. I don't know if it is possible to utilise the defunct offshore oil rigs for this purpose, I haven't seen it suggested anywhere??

Why oh why don't we use the tidal currents, that powerfully surround our coast line? Particularly as we're blessed in the UK with some of the biggest tidal changes in the world. The science is well proven see;- http://www.energybulletin.net/6046.html

Its green!. and cheap by comparison!

Keith Baigrie, Dartmouth, England

The truth is there are too many academics with a study showing this or that and showing too much of a political edge. Come January 1st every year just turn off the the heating and the lights to every household in the UK, for say two weeks. Just think of the result. Climate change fortnight or energy securit fortnight, call it what you like!

DJ, Gloucester, UK

It is reassuring to learn Mr Blair, that at least one politician has finally caught up with what has been known and advocated for the past thirty years.

Now, in the same vein, when is government going to start meaningfully addressing the Country's water resources?

The extraction rate of water needed to satisfy the 'essential' requirements of a sixty-million plus population together with the requirements of industry and agriculture, is substantially greater than the rate of replenishment and aquifer layers are drying up along with the Country's network of rivers.

This is a problem that has been building for the past three decades but those who have attempted to bring it to the attention of successive governments have been politely ignored.

This is not an issue that can be ignored. The gap between extraction rate and replenishment rate has to be bridged and essentially that means building desalination plants. Lack of light is one thing. Lack of water is another entirely.

Richard Crow PhD,C.Eng, Warsaw, Poland

Joe T, I see Al Gore's film Inconvenient Truth hasn't made it to the UK yet. How we know is core samples of ice taken from the Antarctic, it's possible actually to measure how much CO2 was in the atmosphere in times past.
Solar technology has improved considerably in the last few years & soon can indeed be taken seriously as a power source. If we put more effort into R&D & at the same time push conservation, solar *in combination* with other sources mentioned (viz. wind, methane) could well be a solution to power generation without the pollution & dangers associated with coal & nuclear. But first we ordinary people have to stop allowing politicos of whatever stripe to horse around with crucial matters - yes our Bush for one.

Linda, Albany NY US,

I think it's fascinating that everyone's talking about reducing hydrocarbon emissions and recycling, but nobody says a word about the need to recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen. Carbon dioxide production is only half the story. Country by country we need to do a study to determine NET CO2 production. How much that is being produced is converted by trees, bushes, grass, and sea plants into oxygen? We just might find that the supposed polluters are actually green and that the supposedly green countries are polluters. I sometimes wonder at the environmentalists. In my country the forest service has actually sometimes let forest fires burn in the name of ecology. This, of course, reduces the number of trees and at the same time increases carbon dioxide. But it's "NATURAL". Natural pollution is somehow good while human pollution is bad. We'd have a better world if environmentalists stopped flying around the world on private jets to give green speaches and instead planted trees.

Tom Haughey, San Juan, Texas, USA

"I suggest you refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has looked at this very carefull over the last 19 years and very clearly set out why man-made CO2 is a major risk to civilisation."

If we have passed the point of 'oil prodution max' why are western goverments becoming so obssesed with CO2 levels.
Seems clear to me that CO2 emisions will fall due to the lack of oil.

And that will be a very real problem.

Max, Drogheda, Ireland

You make out that the whole carbon emission/greenhouse gas/global warming connection is established as irrefutable fact. Yet you know perfectly well that this is not the case, and that, predominantly, the huge amount of public concern is politically, not scientifically, generated. You also know that public perceptions have been tailored to coincide with what politicians feel they can deal with, and also that many assertions, taken as fact in the constructed orthodoxy, are actually highly contentious and quite incapable of justification with scientific method.

I'd suggest this position rests on your view that unregulated humanity is self-destructive, and therefore needs constant micro-management by the few who have decided they are fit to be its guardians. To you, this permits assuming de facto positions for which the evidence is inconclusive. There are many who disagree vigorously with this concept, and who regard it as morally unacceptable to impose it upon us.

Simon Stephenson, Windermere, UK

You English need to stop complaining about Tony Blair and start to listen to him. He has close links to Australia and may well be able to borker a deal to tap our uranium resources and huge north-west gas supplies( 3 trillion litres).
Maybe he and the Queen should become 'honorary' Aussies to expedite this ?

Eugene Sherry, Sydney,

It is a shame that Mr Blair was not taking these "first steps" to combat global warming at the begining of his reign instead of going to war to secure our energy supplies.
Human costs aside, compare the financial cost of... say a Seven Barrage to an Iraq war.
Then factor in the length of time of that energy security...
And no I`m not just another peace loving hippy. I`m an ex para.

Jack, Camborne, Uk

Now Mr Blair is leaving office, he has a chance to do all those things which the country needs but are too politically unpopular. How about banning private cars? Then we won't need to keep troops in the Gulf, and North Sea will last longer.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

Most people don't realise nuclear is a hell of a lot more sustainable than it currently is. A different reactor type that runs at a much higher temperature than conventional ones actually allows much more of the U-235 fuel to be used up. The byproducts are much less radioactive (halflives are on the scale of 300 years as opposed to 30000) and can't be weaponised.

These reactors can hugely improve carbon emissions, so let's build them!

Martin, St Andrews, Scotland

Kazakhstan is a fast-growing economy with real potential. We can easily get uranium from there. Rob, I suspect you have watched Borat (filmed largely in Romania) once too often. And Sophie's point is missed by too many. Every breath we take releases Carbon Dioxide. A policy similar to China, such as only 2/3 babies per person, would help this.

Ben, York,

Some of these comments are unbelievable. This government under Tony Blair has lead the way internationally with its emissions policy. Can no one here remember the G8 where the two policies ontop of the list that Britain presented were global warming and Africa. We all know the mistakes Blair made with Iraq and we can hate him for these and judge him in this area all we wish. But on these two subjects (Global warming and Africa) he and the British government have been at the forefront of every international movement since he took office. Most people that have commented on this article seem to believe he's just suddenly decided to take it up as a last minute whim. Obviously they haven't been interested enough in the subject to realise the direction the government has been heading in for the last 10 years. From my point of view it's reassuring that the article above is far calmer in it's speculation about the problems that lie ahead than the petty unconstructive comments beneath it.

Dean Fairchild, Oxford, UK

Why are people so obnoxious when commenting about Tony Blair? Would they say those things to his face? I very much doubt it. If they really felt as strongly as their diatribes would suggest, they would have done more to have had him removed from power.

Ted, Rome, Italy

It is quite wrong to suggest that nuclear power may be needed because there is a simple, mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without the headaches of nuclea power. I refer to "concentrating solar power" CSP the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to creat heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines an d generators just like a conventional power station. This technology has been generating electricity in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get thier electricty from this source. In the report (TRANS-CSP) comissioned by the German Government it is estimated that CSP electricity imported from North Africa could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe and enable all nuclear to be phased out. I urge Tony Blair and the public to visit www.trecers.net to see that there is an alternative thats proven, carbon free, nuclear waste free and will support Africa at the same time.

Henry Muss, London, London

Greenpeace has published an interesting refutation of this article here:

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/why-tony-blair-is-wrong-about-nuclear-power-20070523

"Nuclear power provides 19 per cent of our electricity but - much more importantly for both climate change and energy security - only 3.6 per cent of our energy." and "Replacing our whole fleet of nuclear power stations would reduce our carbon emissions by just four per cent. Some time after 2024."

Bethany, London,

If all else fails, Perth seems to be the preferred site for a new nuclear power station. David Leslie doesn't like the idea of a windfarm in his garden, but presumably he has no objections to a nuclear power station located there instead.

Steve, Aberdeen, Scotland

#Re: Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England.

What does it matter what the cause is IT IS happening. I see that the latest serious calculation say that the Arctic will be ice free in 30 yrs. I don't know if that includes the Greenland Ice Cap? But if does?? I see that the expected rise in sea level in that event is seven METERS.

All right, say that's even half right??. The spring tide at London Bridge routinely goes over the top of the Thames embankment..NOW

I just hope the new inhabitants of the post Olympic Games 'sustainable infrastructure' in the Lea Valley get issued with water wings this time, not like Canvey Island last time!

Keith Baigrie, Dartmouth, England

this is a moment in our trajectory so serious that it makes absolutely clear the following:

We need to argue on the merits of the case and not on the basis of our affection or antipathy for the speaker. The latter is simply ignorance, which right now we cannot afford, if we ever could.

Regards

Penny Georgiou, London, UK

Just turn your lights out and go quietly. You've done enough environmental and collateral damage; burned enough trust and human kind.

mick, coventry, uk

The sooner Blair retires into ignominy the better.

John Phillips, Kelowna, Canada, British Columbia

People criticise Tony Blair for being slow to come around to and to implement his advocacy of nuclear power.

Well, you live and learn. Blair should be thanked for taking lessons from his experiences in power.

Leaders are seldom popular because of international issues. We elect them because of the local hospital or school, not because they recognise external threats & influences. On his way out, Blair is no longer bothered about popularity. (Though he still has to grasp the other stingy nettle - festering fundamentalism.)

It is clear that, if only for reasons highlighted recently - viz Russia's monopoly of our gas supplies - we must maintain and extend our own independent nuclear capacity.

And for the green lobby:
Blair: "Without [nuclear power] we will not be able to meet any of our objectives on climate change, or our objectives on energy security." (Nuclear provides 20% of Britain's power, 75 billion kWh in 2005.)"

I still maintain my blog to Keep Tony Blair for PM - Google it.

BlairSupporter, London, UK

Tony Blair insists new nuclear would be necessary to ensure security of energy supply, as otherwise we would become overdependent on politically unreliable Russia for imported gas.Setting aside we presently rely upon the deeply "unreliable" Norway for most of our gas imports, where does he propose to mine indigenous uranium sources in the UK? For decades successive governments have deemed the meagre uranium deposits in Britain as uneconomic to mine.Using reprocessed uranium in new nuclear fuel is also regarded by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns this left over reprocessed uranium, as uneconomic, due to its high degree of contamination.So any uranium for new nuclear fuel would have to be imported. The growing new supplier in this market is none other than Kazakhstan, one of those former Soviet republics on Russia's underbelly, and just as unreliable in energy supplies as its northern neighbour Russia.So it is out of the gas frying pan, into the atomic fire!

Dr David Lowry, Stoneleigh, Surrey

"I'd much rather we fill this gap with nuclear power than have power stations that dump vast amounts of greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere."

nuclear sounds like a good idea, but they haven't found secure, safe storage for the hundreds of containers of spent nuclear fuel that we have used already! investing in nuclear is a waste of time, we need to streamline our demands for energy and create more efficient 'alternative' energy converters.

c robinson, falmouth, cornwall

B of Belfast is wrong: We do have uranium ores in the UK. It's been mined before, but not at the moment because foreign sources are much cheaper (but domestic mines can still be a "backup" in a way that domestic oil & gas cannot).

However, foreign uranium supplies generally come from more stable places than the middle east, aren't held to ransom by the Kremlin, and are much more easy to stockpile in the UK if necessary. Where in the UK could you store a year's spare coal & oil?

Wind, solar &c cannot meet all our energy needs any time soon, so there's a gap to be filled; I'd much rather we fill this gap with nuclear power than have power stations that dump *vast* amounts of greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere.

Bob, Ipswich, UK

It's a shame that Blair could not, even at this late stage, come off the fence and admit that without more nuclear power - and soon - we will have to have rolling power outages. No lights, and for most of us without fireplaces, no heating (electric controls) and no cooking for hours at a time. Remember the Heath-era coal miners strike.

B from Belfast (above) tells a very misleading story. Secure uranium supplies are available from Australia and Canada. Estimates are that if a shortage were to develop a doubling of the cost would soon lead to a tenfold increase in supply by mining less-enriched ores. Moreover, the availability of "fast breeder reactors" will give us another 50-fold increase in availability. Together these factors mean that there is enough uranium to last the planet for hundreds of years, by which time which should have mastered clean nuclear fusion power technology. (And don't forget that we can also use thorium reactors.)

Ian, Exeter, UK

Tony Blair fails to make a transparent case for Nuclear Power. The Energy mix, Russia, Climate Change and North sea resouces dwindling. Tony Blair does not even mention the large contribution the decentralised microgeneration potential. When Tony Blair refers to renewables he means many large scale centralised Wind, Wave and Tidal Power

The questions with Nuclear power should be

What happens to existing High Grade radiation storage and disposal, and the £70bn price tag?

What will future radiative waste be disposed of and how much will it cost?

What are the climate change and environmental effects in Africa, Canada and Australia, the costs and the energy dependency issues. There are only 50 years worth of U238 ore left with countries like US, Russia, China, India, Japan , etc wanting to secure the same finite U ore. Wrunningill the UK and China be fighting over African Uranium in 10-20 years to keep their stations running?

IMOThe case has not been made?

Rob Whittle, Norwich, UK

Tony Blair insists new nuclear would be necessary to ensure security of energy supply, as otherwise we would become overdependent on politically unreliable Russia for imported gas.Setting aside we presently rely upon the deeply "unreliable" Norway for most of our gas imports, where does he propose to mine indigenous uranium sources in the UK? For decades successive governments have deemed the meagre uranium deposits in Britain as uneconomic to mine.Using reprocessed uranium in new nuclear fuel is also regarded by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns this left over reprocessed uranium, as uneconomic, due to its high degree of contamination.So any uranium for new nuclear fuel would have to be imported. The growing new supplier in this market is none other than Kazakhstan, one of those former Soviet republics on Russia's underbelly, and just as unreliable in energy supplies as its northern neighbour Russia.So it is out of the gas frying pan, into the atomic fire!

Dr David Lowry, Stoneleigh, Surrey

I cannot believe Tony Blair would willingly do anything to hurt the UK, and also that he has been well aware of the dangers posed by climate change and (a developing lack of) energy security over his term of office. But historically low energy prices up to recent times have prevented the necessary public support for tough decisions being made yesteryear, as in all the world.

I think climate change is a problem that cannot be solved, rather, it can only be mitigated. The cause is our continuing dependance on cheap fossil fuels to support our extremely wealthy industrialised societies. Energy must remain cheap or widespread poverty will develop and grow unmanageable. So the worst case scenario of the IPCC will certainly come true, barring massive long-term global economic depression, and all government policy should be made with this awful prospect firmly in mind. Sentimentalism and idealism leading to costly and grossly ineffective "solutions" should be understood for what it is.

J. van Dorp, Den Haag, Zuid Holland

As someone who bristles at the very name 'Tony Blair', I have to say I agree with his stance on nuclear power, however late in coming.

An examination of the so-called 'Green' movement makes it clear that it is so heavily influenced by anti-West, anti-capitalist politics, that it is every bit as suspect as the other extreme represented by ruthless oil, strip-mining, and logging companies.

Concern for the environment exists where it can be used as a vehicle for often out-dated, hard-left views, but is cynically abandoned when it cannot . Thus the hysterical, intolerant campaign blaming human (esp. US) activity for global warming in the face of considerable evidence to the contrary : but try asking a 'Green' why immigration - the main cause of overcrowding in our small, increasingly built-over island - is not only totally ignored, but actively promoted.

If the UK is to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, sadly only nuclear power offers a practical means to do so.

L Stewart, Spalding, England

Tony Blair makes a persuasive argument for the nuclear case. He understands it so well, how bad is it to really on others for energy supplies. In fact he also realizes that future dependence on oil is not a viable option for two reasons. Firstly he admits that UK's own reserve would have depleted and secondly if they have to import oil it will be from unstable countries!

However, Blair together with the European countries and the US insist that Iran and others should not be allowed to develop the technology for nuclear energy. They insist that Russia can enrich uranium on behalf of Iran. So Iran should be at the mercy of the same Russia that he admits is adding to the woes in Europe energy supply.

What a hypocrite! Don't take me wrong I agree with Blair as far as being your own master.

manfriedt muundjua, Windhoek, Namibia

1% of the sahara using solar power stations as built in sevilla will satisfy the worlds energy needs in an otherwise unusable landscape.
(see BBC report < http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/6616651.stm >)

Clean, carbon free energy. We cannot rely on self sufficiency if the answer is nuclear power - and then we deny Iran the right to produce their own...because we don't trust them. Hypocrisy.

The sun dies, so do we, without the pollution that nuclear energy pollution (radiation is dangerous and lasts beyond our lifetime).

Work towards a cooperation on a global basis.

julian mansbridge, oslo,

The radical solution to all this, of course, is indeed nuclear power, but not of the fissile kind. Relaunching a European collaborative effort into self-sustaining fusion reactors would change the energy map at a stroke. Pity it's such a tough problem creating a mini-sun on earth without destroying it in the process of course...

GK, London,

Steve, Aberdeen. Not everybody in Scotland thinks the way you and the SNP do. We don't all want windfarms in our gardens, nor a damn great electric cable from the north to the south. You can scrap nuclear energy if you wish, and the SNP wishes. However, when the lights go out it will be the blinkered attitude of the proto-greens that will be to blame. There are not enough 'natural' resources, be they wave, wind or tide, to maintain the electricity needs of Scotland.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

A sound analysis and good policy approach.

By the way Edmond, if you want a detailed explanation of natural and anthropogenic climate change, I suggest you refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that has looked at this very carefull over the last 19 years and very clearly set out why man-made CO2 is a major risk to civilisation.

Peter, London, England

This sums up Mr. Blair. "Over ten years I have watched..." he says, going on with, "We need a policy...." Yes we do Mr. Blair - and if you had been doing something instead of just watching, we'd probably be in a better position today.

Mark, Silsoe, UK

I was converted to nuclear power but now I am not so sure. If Tony has decided to adopt this as his latest crusade to save the planet then, given his record, I am now highly suspicious.

Peter Donson, Southwell,Notts, UK

I echo most comments. Easy to say now isn't it Tony, yet another spineless politician who promised much but had the balls to do nothing. Stop wasting our time and p*ss off.

Richard, Leeds,

Perhaps, Chris Skyrme, you should consider helping the British people pay for the relevant research into renewable energy, instead of moaning on about the "horrendous windmills", whilst comfortably sitting in your listed tax haven of Qatar?

Nuclear power, whilst in the short term being more clean, clearly does not represent a truly renewable source of energy, because of all the obvious nuclear waste implications.

If we increase our dependance on nuclear power now, we are only putting off the inevitable, and re-creating the problem we are experiencing now for future generations.

Joe Pearson, York, United Kingdom

"importing energy from less stable parts of the world" Where's the uranium going to come from Mr Blair? Canada and Australia will have run out by the time our new power stations are built. Oh yes, Khazahkstan....

Nuclear power (fission) isn't magic. It needs fuel.

Robert Chadmills, Swindon, UK

its called by passing the minimum wage
and the Govt appear powerless

rex tyler, Berkhamsted, UK

I am surprised that the development of nuclear fusion power is given so little attention in the public debate of energy strategy. This promises abundant energy without the waste problems of our current fission systems. It also would provide a carbon free platform and the fuel resource is effectively inexhaustible.
We and other nations have been working for decades on this development and whilst much progress has been made to develop a sustainable reaction sufficient to deliver power economicaly, we still appear to be a long way from a realistic solution.
Given the increasingly important global issues here, I would have thought the fusion development programme should have a much higher priority than it appears to have. Or do we, notwithstanding substantial continued investment today, doubt it ever coming to fruition?

Nick, leuven, belgium

Oh for a politician brave enough to use the 'N" word. Nuclear power is the obvious answer if we are not to wreck the globe or our country. These ar weasel words. Tony Blair knows perfectly well that nuclear power is the best answer - but he is so scared of the electorate that he can't say it. Please explain why we buy a significant proportion of our electricity from France, Mr Blair. Please tell us that he newest generation of reactors are cheaper than windfarms and more carbon-friendly than hydro dams, both of which wreck what little wilderness we still have.

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch,

It isn't Tony Blair's idea. It's the idea of a small army of our most highly qualified energy analysts, scientists, academics and think tanks.

Here are some more ideas that are likely to be edged in carefully past the nimbyists over the next couple of decades fyi:

- Energy from waste
- Mini/midi CCHP generation
- Overground nuclear waste repositories
- Severn Trent barrier (possibly)
- Coal newbuild (possibly)

MT, Woking, UK

I see that some people are so blinkered, that they cannot see the argument because of their antipathy towards Tony Blair, and that other would have spent money in different ways. Of course, we can always spend out money differently, but the money has been spent and cannot be spent again. Micro-generation will not work, especially in places like London, and is a non-starter just about anywhere. Wind power will not provide for the need for electricity 24/7, wave and tidal power have barely made it off the drawing board. Clean coal reduces, but doesn't eleminate CO2 emissions, nuclear power is safe (witness France, Sweden etc) and, after building, are emission free and the technology exists today, is not just some pipedream, taht won't come to fruition until after the lights have gone out.

David Leslie, Perth, Scotland

The timing couldn't have been better for Labour to lose control in Scotland. We don't have the need, demand or desire for nuclear power. Hopefully the new Scottish Executive will resist the push for new nuclear power stations and instead move to invest in utilising the clean, natural resources that are in abundance north of the border.

Steve, Aberdeen, Scotland

Has he not gone yet?

Jon Barker, Glagow, UK

This is all far too late. The energy crisis is on us, globally, today. Climate change is just one aspect of it. Global oil production has now peaked, not just the North Sea. Global coal reserves are massively overestimated. Net energy production (the energy left after energy expended extracting it) will be upon the world in the next decade. Nuclear will neither solve the short term UK shortages nor the world long term shortages, as uranium itself is a finite resourse.
We need to learn to live with far less total energy, and far less reliable energy. We need to adapt our personal behaviour and expectations dramatically, there can be NO 'business as usual'. It simply will not happen. Are our leaders strong enough to admit to that?

Ralph Williams, Cambridge, Cambs

B of Belfast is wrong: We do have uranium ores in the UK. It's been mined before, but not at the moment because foreign sources are much cheaper (but domestic mines can still be a "backup" in a way that domestic oil & gas cannot).

However, foreign uranium supplies generally come from more stable places than the middle east, aren't held to ransom by the Kremlin, and are much more easy to stockpile in the UK if necessary. Where in the UK could you store a year's spare coal & oil?

Wind, solar &c cannot meet all our energy needs any time soon, so there's a gap to be filled; I'd much rather we fill this gap with nuclear power than have power stations that dump vast amounts of greenhouse gases (and other pollutants) into the atmosphere.

Bob, Ipswich,

How can we possibly Know that carbon dioxide levels are 35% higher than they where before the industrial revolution who was monitoring carbon dioxide oxide level in a agriculturally led economy did the technology evan exist then

JoeT, Ipswich,

So it takes your final month in office for you to finally do something sensible. Better late than never I suppose. Now off you go.

James, Monteria,

In response to B from Belfast

Both the US and Australia have large stocks of Uranium, I'd consider them relativly secure allies.
As for running out, using a reactor from the 50's, yes, we can power the world for about 20 years using nuclear exclusivly.
However, modern thorium breeder reactors get rather more milage from the fuel, and can reuse the fuel, and when its finaly worthless, it has about 200 years of storage time left.

Dominic, Manchester, UK

The planet Mars is warming at the same rate at the Earth. It's not human CO2 emmissions that is causing this. Go figure...

Jim, Lewes,

Why is it that in discussing carbon emissions you never mention the major contributing factor of overpopulation? Why have you done nothing to raise awareness of the role population explosion plays in global warming? Global population has gone from 2.5 billion to 6.9 billion in the past 50 years and is projected to reach 9 billion within the next 50. No wonder carbon emissions are spiralling. And it is not just a problem of China or India, the British population is expanding as well. Why not educate people that if they want to help reduce global warming and give their children a fighting chance of inheriting a liveable planet they should not have more than 2 children? Why not make reducing the global population a key issue for G8?

Sophie Waterhouse, London,

How many wind/wave/hydro/solar plants could have been paid for with the money wasted by waging a war in Iraq? How many with the money going to be spent replacing Trident? Millenium dome? Olympics? ID cards?

Now a constructive suggestion - why not take a significant amount of money and provide subsidies for domestic micro-generation?

Joe, London,

Why not use more of our coal reserves employing modern methods of filtration and carbon capture?

Why do we not spent more time and money on developing coal gasification equipment to be utilised under the North Sea? This could satisfy most of our energy needs.

It seems to me that we should concentrate on reserves available in this country, so that we do not depend on others, who may use energy to solve their political problems.

Ken, Orpington, Kent, U.K.

Not a bad essay, but it avoids the issue of natural climate change. The fjords of Norway were scooped out by glacial action in a previous ice age. Conversely, as the ice-cap recedes in the Antarctic, dead leaves have been found underneath it. Who, among our ancestors on the planet, was responsible for the prehistoric global warming that enabled forests to grow there? It would be helpful if climatologists were to explain to the public the difference between natural climate-change and man-made climate change, and what kind of controlled experiments they use to tell the difference between the two.

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

BRAVE BLAIR.........attempting to influence ....DICTATE?... a policy which he has cowardly avoided for the past 10 yrs
.........as he walks out the door

mike, oxon, uk

mr blair you have done a great job with goverment policies, if ther was a better person for the job they would have put themselves forward, wouldnt they?? the issues on travel charges, an easy solution, the retired get free bus travel, so the limit should be retirement age for driving , and make free bus travel up to 21, and that should be the start age for driving, it also gives the younger person time to save for the car and appreciate its value , and the older person could relax on their journey and enjoy their retirement without the stresses of driving in todays society

christine, swansea, uk

In spite of the common belief that 'Mrs Thatcher was a scientist, she supported nuclear', this suppossed enthusiasm never translated into actually building any stations. In fact she delivered a devasting blow to the industry by removing it from State patronage - ostensibly so as 'to free up the industry to be able to seek further investment' but actually as a rather clever way of distancing the Government from an industry whose first brilliant dawn was fading. For my money, flogging off the electricity industry was probably the single worst decision made by her Government (a complete abdication of responsibility) - not only was the nuclear industry effectively abandoned, so was the coal industry, and we put our faith in short-term financial gain and to hell with any strategic planning. Perhaps the nuclear industry can recover, but it will be very very hard.

Paul Randall, Chichester,

Mr Blair,

As is said above you have ignored this issue unitl it is too late.
However, I hope you can use your infuence as an ex PM and Mr Browns best mate to get more nuclear power stations built as soon as possible, we might then be able to take down those horrendous windmills you have put up everywhere (except where you live).

Chris Skyrme, Doha, Qatar

I wish you would just go away;you have wrecked this country in a little under ten years.
Just leave.

Michael J Rigby, Blackburn, England

Why do people keep thinking of nuclear as an answer? We don't have Uranium ore in UK, so again we're reliant on it coming from elsewhere so that negates this argument over energy stability and defence.

Its not renewable and will ultimately run out, estimates, if capacity grows as expected, is in 20 or 30 years, then what?

Very short sighted view this by Tony, we need to be a little more clever than this!!

B, Belfast,

The lowest carbon emitters in Europe are Sweden, France and Switzerland, with their heavy use of nuclear power and hydro electricity.

Emissions in pro-wind Denmark are twice those of Sweden.

It is clear already how to be prosperous and have low emissions

Paul , northwich, england

Tony,

To echo the first comment below -- this is nothing new. 20 years ago at "science" class in school the message was the same.

We need to bite the bullet and repopularise nuclear power. We've lost decades worth of advancement in this respect.

John Wells, Cambridge, UK

Mr.. Balir writes: "Over ten years I have watched energy policy go from being a relatively quiet backwater to something taking on a strategic importance that could be as crucial to our country’s future as defence. "

Well said! He "watched" for 10 years, then finally woke up to the problem a month before leaving office.

Energy security was an obvious challenge 10 years ago. Nothing that is happening to our energy supplies from the Middle East, or Russia - or potential Venezuela - is coming as a suprise, yet we'lll now have to wait at least another 10 years before a new nuclear power station can be built - assuming under Brown one ever can.

Dom in Oxford, Oxford, England

I have to say that although I believe Mr. Blair's decisions have raised many a controversy during his tenure, I also believe that any person who takes on the role as Prime Minister of possibly the greatest nation on Earth, carries a massive amount of responsibility on their shoulders.

Mr Blair has taken on his role and had many hurdles to overcome. As would anybody in his role. However, we can talk, debate, crticise etc.. all we want but at the end of the day, a decision has to be made and Mr. Blair has made it.

Climate change is a real and pressing matter which requires the world's immediate attention and that is what Mr. Blair is doing at the moment. People will inevitably whinge throughout the process but if the decisions now create positive results at some point in the future then let's give them a try. How will we know otherwise.

Nilesh Lad, Bradford, England

I don't believe it is all true and Mr.Blair is, demonstrably, a man with poor foresight so why should he be believed now?

Roger Sykes, Christchurch, New Zealand

All true, but it was true in 1997, when you became Prime Minister. Why did you dodge the bullet that you are now passing to the next Cabinet? Why have we spent the last ten years burning coal that pollutes and oil that can't be replaced?

Wait, I know, we were too busy "saving the NHS".

jon livesey, Sunnyvale, CA/US