Only once the project looks as if it will happen, can it be financed by members of the public buying shares.

Just now there is an opportunity for you to help 2 projects in the North East overcome that first barrier - with just a few minutes of your time. Energyshare has created a fund for three projects, one in each of 3 categories, which achieve the greatest number of votes in a poll on the internet. Two N E projects have reached the final stages - in different categories, so they are not competing against each other. You can vote for one project in each category if you log on to www.energyshare.com/hrh You can read about the projects before voting.

Hexham River Hydro is currently leading the 'large' category. Earsdon Renewable Energy is lagging in the 'medium' category. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the solidarity of the North East succeeded in making both happen.

The feed-in tariffs help to provide the answer. They give a simple yardstick of present performance. Their purpose is to encourage the take-up of all the different technologies, as this will stimulate their development and improvement. They are added to the user's income to make the payback time for the original cost about the same whatever the technology. The most cost effective technologies need the least subsidy, and so receive the lowest feed-in tariffs. These are, equally, hydro power schemes between 2 and 5 MW and wind power schemes between 1.5 and 5 MW.

There are very few, if any, undeveloped hydro sites of this size in Northumberland. There are many potential wind sites of this scale. One could even imagine each village having a single 1.5 MW turbine of its own.

But there are 2 substantial barriers to land based wind turbines. One is the unfairness in sharing the benefits. The second is the variability and unpredictability of wind. I want to consider ways that these can be addressed.

For me the more scary thing than the meltdown of the fuel rods was the evaporation of water from the ponds holding spent fuel rods, exposing those rods to the atmosphere. Those rods contain plutonium and, when not constantly cooled, overheat and release plutonium dust particles into the atmosphere - not a nice thing to breathe in - and no-one was publicly talking about that, although they were desperately trying to fill those ponds as well as the cooling water to the reactors themselves.

Suddenly the whole problem of high level nuclear waste became much more immediate. I had explained in my blog on nuclear power about how you make plutonium. The trouble is that in a nuclear power station you cannot avoid creating plutonium with its half life of 24,000 years and you can't get rid of it.

Shortly before this event I had been thinking about the long term costs of cooling high level nuclear waste for thousands of years and sent a freedom of information request to the Department of Energy and Climate Change for the annual cost of cooling our present high level nuclear waste. Back came the result: We do not keep those figures!

The British Government is still proposing to continue its love affair with nuclear power. Why?

Some people - the very young and the old - can't safely do that, but there is help specially for them. If anyone in the household is 5 or under, 60 or over, or on benefits, then you are entitled to free loft insulation up to a thickness of about 11 inches, and should contact Warm Zone or the Energy Saving Trust to arrange it. Loft insulation is probably the most cost effective insulation step you can take.

However you need to get at least ÂŞ of your attic floor covered to qualify. If you don't qualify, for instance if you want to keep storage space, you can still do part yourself quite cheaply as the government currently subsidises half the cost of loft insulation material.

I found out a year ago that open fires burn at about 15% efficiency, whilst modern wood burning stoves can be well over 70% efficient. That is incredible. It means you only need about 1/5th of the fuel for the same heat. Now I try to keep the doors of my wood burning stove firmly shut, and will explore getting a more efficient stove.

The most obvious thing is transport. Flying has a big carbon impact, roughly 10 times the impact of doing the same distance by train or bus. Aviation fuel is not taxed, whilst fuel for cars, buses and trains is, making them four times as expensive in fuel costs. The era of cheap flights would never have happened if there had been a level playing field. I do not blame people, especially people on low budgets, for flying across Britain if it is quicker and cheaper than the train. But I do blame government for not using taxes, subsidies and investment to make land travel the better option. ITALY has managed to do that. So can we.

This raises a major point. There are successful models around the world, and we should be looking to those. I will mention some.

First of all, we need to have some guiding principle(s) concerning the energy we use. Mine is simply that we should not be using energy that our children will pay for. We should be looking at all forms of energy from that standpoint.

We have already put the debt of the banking crisis onto future taxpayers. In addition with the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) we are having facilities now, especially hospitals and schools, that are to be paid for later. We are now threatening to destroy the quality of life for future generations by continuing to release global warming gases. What would be the impact of a renewed love-in with nuclear power?

This promises to be quite a long blog so I am giving headings so you can skip to the aspect you want. The topics are: the difference between nuclear power stations and nuclear bombs, the costs, nuclear accidents, and nuclear fusion. Probably the last one on fusion is the most relevant.

One was the announcement in October of plans to install up to 1,000 charging points for electric cars around Newcastle and Gateshead over the next 2 years, making the NE the lead area for the introduction of electric cars. On its own this would have no benefit for the climate if the electricity continues to be generated by the old polluting power generators. But the other two together work well with this:

In July, Ed Miliband announced that a 'feed in tariff' would be introduced in April 2010 for renewable energy generated by homes and businesses. This is something that has enabled microgeneration to take off in Germany. It allows you to sell any surplus electricity to the grid and if it is a new and not yet very economic technology, such as solar cells, you get a higher price. This makes the payback time for a new installation shorter and encourages demand. It contrasts dramatically with the former policy here of allocating a fund for grants, which were withdrawn as soon as the fund ran out, leaving supplying companies with cancelled orders and possible collapse.

Then at the beginning of this month the government announced a 'smart meter' roll out to all 26 million UK households by 2020...

The site has been left as rubble since the old power station was demolished 6 years ago, creating a nightmare for the residents, who presented photographs illustrating the decaying conditions they have been enduring. The Council Leader agreed to an escorted fact finding visit.

At 5 pm, on the same day, I received a call from Dave Black at the Journal asking if I had any comment on RWE npower's announcement that the proposed power station was to be shelved indefinitely! We hadn't been expecting such quick results.

After my first blog I received the following email: 'You say the UK is currently in Europe only ahead of Malta and Luxembourg in adopting renewable energy. That's a very useful statistic. Do you have a reference for it please?'

Well, this perfectly illustrated the point I made at the end of my second blog. We have the power, in a way that has never before been available, of accessing all sorts of key resources, including scientific and government reports, and using it. In a search through my paper files I couldn't put my hands on the source, so I opened Google and typed in - 'renewable energy targets 2020'. I took one of the first choices 'The EU's target for Renewable Energy 20% by 2020'. This turned out to be the report of the House of Lords EU committee 2007-2008. There on pages 15 and 16, Table 1, were the full embarrassing facts - 3 columns: the countries, their percentages of renewable energy in 2005, and their agreed targets for 2020. I had not seen the full stark table before. These are the figures at the bottom of the scale for 2005: Malta 0%, Luxembourg 0.9%, UK 1.3%... and at the top: Sweden 39.8%, Latvia 34.9%, Finland 28.5%. Look at the table yourself. In the light of all the claims made by Tony Blair that we are world leaders in tackling climate change, and the way most people in Britain and even outside Britain believed him, these figures are mind bogglingly horrific.

Diamond gives 3 main reasons for failure of past civilisations: the catastrophe arriving imperceptibly slowly; the character of the catastrophe being outside past experience; and when a small ruling elite could reap huge rewards in the short term by actions which would in the long run cause devastating damage to the wider community.

The first two reasons did apply to our present climate change, but the painstaking work of scientists has diminished them if we want to open our eyes.

Diamond suggests that the 3rd cause can be averted if leaders are not isolated from the main society in walled, gated, luxury enclaves, but are affected directly by any disasters, such as Dutch leaders who will be drowned with the rest of the population if the dykes are breached.

For instance when the ancient Maya in the 9th century were faced with prolonged drought, the basic response of their leaders was to carry out more and more human sacrifices to appease their god. Are our current responses to climate change equally inappropriate to an independent observer from Mars?

I will explore Diamond's ideas in a later blog. Today I want to alert you to a consultation.

Wednesday 9th September is the closing day for contributions to the government's innocuous looking consultation on "Clean Coal" called 'A framework for the development of clean coal'. However much this may be a paper exercise for a decision already taken, there is value in showing the government that the issues are widely understood and any short term selfish measure which puts our children's future at risk will receive massive opposition.