Adressing Global Warming---L4

[Russell Chapman]

dsummersminet at comcast.net wrote lots of interesting stuff which raised a 
couple of quick questions for me:

1. Why the time limit on nuclear energy? Even if every capable nation 
ramped up plant construction enormously (and I hope they do), there is 
enough uranium in Australia alone to supply their reactors for far more 
than a century, plus Russia has massive reserves. Even with the current 
439 reactors, 34 under construction, 93 planned and 200 odd proposed  we 
are still only talking about 64 tonnes per year. No doubt there are 
other reserves that could be tapped if needed. Plants like Olkiluoto 
(online 2011??) have been designed to last 100 years, but there is no 
reason to think we can't keep building them during that time.

2. I would question the writing off of hydrogen as a storage method. 
Whether we talk about using peak power generation for the liquefication 
of hydrogen for subsequent combustion, or simple separation for fuel 
cell processing during peak load, either would work with technology that 
has been proven, if not production ready. One significant advantage is 
its usefulness in commercial applications - development is already being 
funded by private enterprise. As an example, even though BMW and 
Mercedes Benz have completely different ideas about the future of 
hydrogen, both have working prototypes in advanced testing.

3. You seem to be advocating government support for wind power, but the 
experience thus far suggests is doesn't do diddly for AGW. Vencorp 
(Victoria, Australia) and Denmark are clear examples of adding wind 
power to the grid with a zero impact on hydrocarbon-fired plant CO2 
output - they simply can't be ramped up and down to match the variations 
in wind turbine output. Is the Texas experience that coal/oil/gas power 
plants can be scaled back because of wind turbine power?

Cheers
Russell C.