DEBATE continues apace about how we meet our future energy needs.

Many people in the discussion are still stuck in a place where they can list the energy production methods they think are unacceptable, but can’t offer an acceptable method.

In coastal and farming communities, many seem offended by the potential visual impacts of wind energy, whether on hill tops or well out to sea.

There are environmental questions remaining relating to the products used in the fan blades, their lifespan and how they are disposed of at the end of their life, even though they are an emissions-free producer.

There is also a growing resentment to the large-scale use of solar panels, which takes up land traditionally used for primary production.

The government’s efforts to promote pumped hydro have been impacted by issues with attempts to bore tunnels through the Snowy Mountains area and at a similar site in northern Queensland.

The really emotional responses are reserved for nuclear production of electricity.

People are throwing around claims about three eyed fish and birth deformities if we venture near these plants.

The cost and slow time frame to achieve nuclear power are more negatives being listed regarding this production method.

So good people, how about some positive suggestions about how to achieve an acceptable supply of electricity within a reasonable period of time, with an acceptable cost basis, and in an environmentally friendly way?

Knowing how hard that proposition is to achieve, may I toss you some rank speculation and maybe even a good conspiracy theory?

What if we don’t like wind, solar, hydro or nuclear?

What if these methods are being pitted against each other to waste time so the only effective method left is gas?

I think the whole answer to this question could be a real gasser.

By John BLACKBOURN