Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


World energy supply 'heading for crisis'

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 08 November 2006
THE world's energy supply is heading for crisis, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned yesterday, predicting "skyrocketing prices or more frequent blackouts" unless urgent action was taken.
The IEA, an energy policy adviser for its 26 member countries including the UK and US, which was established during the oil crisis of 1973-1974, called on governments to build more nuclear power stations to help cut greenhouse gas emissions and also
take steps to reduce the growth in demand for energy. It predicted that global energy needs will surge by 53 per cent over the next 25 years and that crude oil prices could exceed $100 a barrel by 2030.

China is expected to overtake the US as the world's biggest emitter of before 2010, the Paris-based agency added in its 2006 World Energy Outlook.

Claude Mandil, the IEA executive director, said at the report's launch in London yesterday: "We are on course for an energy system that will evolve from crisis to crisis. That may mean skyrocketing prices, or more frequent blackouts.

"On current trends, we are on course for a dirty, expensive and unsustainable energy future. In response, urgent government action is required. The key word is urgent."

The report drove home the nuclear message. "The economics have moved in nuclear power's favour," it said.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

The Strategist,

08/11/2006 02:35:16

Most observers would disagree. The oil price is likely to hit $100 well before 2030!

2

Betsy,

08/11/2006 05:50:33

We are being led by the nose towards nuclear energy with threats of blackouts, higher prices, pollution. Sigh......we are but puppets with sore noses.

3

John M.,

08/11/2006 08:12:33

More a case of the cold hard reality finally setting in that nuclear is the only way we are going to be able to maintain our current standard of living.

4

Duncan,

on tour 08/11/2006 10:52:42

Star building your own Hydrogen generator now.

http://www.wam-a-bam.com/hydrockickbank.html?hop=yuparach

5

Neil,

9% Growth Party 08/11/2006 12:41:30

We are being led by the nose by reality not by some improbable conspiracy.

I have said before that going nuclear would be described as a no-brainer had one not seen the various politicians who oppose it.

Alrernately:

Free energy for all http://www.phact.org/e/dennis4.html

6

Guthrie,

08/11/2006 13:28:13

Dammit Duncan, that so called hydrogen generator is just another scam. Where does it get the energy to produce the hydrogen from?

7

Sanny,

Glasgow 08/11/2006 16:10:14

Here we go again! the choice is yours Equine, Bovine or Canine it's still a load of excrement. Let us not be rushed in to dirty thermal nuclear reactors. Wait for, or better still put the effort into, Cold Fusion. Its clean and almost limittless .
Neil have you heard of law of conservation of energy? Perpetual motion - nowhere in this universe.

8

,

08/11/2006 18:38:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 155704, Article id was mapped to record!
9

Guthrie,

08/11/2006 18:54:20

Cold fusion so far has not gotten anywhere, and there is no reason to think that it will anytime soon. By contrast, billions are being spent on Tokamaks, for what you might call hot fusion.

10

Darrell,

08/11/2006 19:03:15

Why not just build a Dyson's sphere?

11

Hamilton,

08/11/2006 20:58:05

Last month the US Council on Foreign Relations reported on energy. The CFR's recommendations included 'revitalising' international organisations (the United Nations?) so that multilateral public bodies can coordinate the needs of big consumers of oil.

http://www.eitransparency.org/content/article/detail/702

12

Guthrie,

08/11/2006 23:22:24

Because a Dyson sphere requires the kind of engineering capabilities we dont have, (And may not be possible anyway) seeing as you would probably need to convert the mass of jupiter into heavier elemnts to provide something of the framework.

13

Douglas,

Bathgate 09/11/2006 08:42:05

Maybe, but at least the filters don't clog.

14

Colin, Glasgow,

09/11/2006 10:06:38

Douglas, nice one. :)

15

Guthrie,

09/11/2006 12:28:46

ohhhh. thats a terrible joke.

16

Greenheatman,

Tain 10/11/2006 00:10:17

Where has the online letters' page gone?

17

robbie runciman,

Lydd 11/11/2006 16:13:07

unless the IEA are advcating a wholesale switch to sustainable long term energy sources, ie renewables, we should perhaps treat this advice with the respect it deserves. Lets move on for goodness sake and accept that Nuclear is not the answer, its failed.

18

Colin, Glasgow,

11/11/2006 19:05:25

Robbie, that is exactly the attitude that got us into this predicament. We should have been using a lot more nuclear power long before now. The reason that we have over-extended the use of fossil fuel is because of certain people's religious belief that there must be a better solution than nuclear power.

19

Geomon,

Honolulu 13/11/2006 08:16:28

Nuclear fission is the only choice for us now. It's clean (no CO2) and the decay products can be handled. There is risk of terrorism or internal failures, but this is true of all power stations. I really disagree with the timing of the IEA report. Problems will hit us all long before 2030. Try 2010, or only 3 years from now. See Ken Deffeye's web site, an American petroleum geologist of some repute. Therefore, we need to urge immediate nuclear power plant construction. That, and energy conservation may save us. Forget solar, wind, biomass, etc. They simply don't have the capacity.


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.