THE energy debate seems to be going round in circles. We obviously can't decorate our skyline with wind turbines. How could they all be distributed fairly so that no one area is picked upon? And in any case the wind is obviously neither strong nor reliable enough to satisfy our obscene demands.
There are two other viable alternatives:
Nuclear power. Relatively cheap, incredibly powerful totally reliable and capable of reducing the world to a shimmering fluorescent wasteland. The main problem is disposing of the horrifically lethal waste. Maybe scientists will come up with a solution such as chemically reducing its danger. Or maybe sealing it up and butying it in big holes (fraught with danger from earthquake, spontaneous explosions etc).
The wonderful idea of wanging it off into space could cause trouble. Suppose you were sitting out in your garden within some gloriously happy planet and suddenly a lump of radioactive waste landed, uninvited on your coffee table. Somewhat aggrieved you would no doubt persuade your government to promptly stick it back whence it came.
No, there's only one way to satisfy our energy needs. Tidal power harnessed via tidal barrages. Just one problem. Some wildlife (particularly wading birds) would have to make other arrangements for breakfast but that is not impossible.
Anyway, if we don't sort things out then nobody is going to get any breakfast (or dry land on which to devour it).