[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
