Protagoras - what vast amounts of waste from nuclear plants? think of the MCG or the SCG. All the waste from all the nuclear power plants to date and to come for the next century would not fill one of those grounds. An obvious point when you think about it, as we're not talking about uranium ore waste (from which the radiactive uranium is extracted and is in the megatonnes) but the actual fuel rods from the power plants. Given the small volumes involved and low radiation levels (they are spent rods after all), it is difficult to believe that a low tech storage solution involving concrete, sand and barbed wire in a remote location would not be effective. But there are activists who insist that as the waste cannot be stored without risk we should not store it at all.
Let us pass over such logic. You mention Denmark and Germany as the leaders in wind power. Sure they have wasted vast amounts of public money for very little reduction in emissions, so why should we be in a hurry to follow their lead?

Poirot

.strangely, we haven't had any wintry weather this winter.'

Really, I would think that the longest coldest patch on record is wintry. You would hardly call it summer. Just goes to show that people will put whatever spin they want on it including the alarmist who justify their spin with pseudo and fraudulent science.

Energy Game Chanager ?

Sheesh yes.. specially when Obama had the chance since day 1 to utilize very effective skimmer ships which pick up 90% plus of spilled oil...but REFUSED TO DO SO..for SEVENTY + DAYS!

Hmmmmmm....*wonders*..

"why" would Obama hold off on an effective clean up for over 70 days?

Hmmmm...just wondering......

Maybe the real game is... 'change the energy game' :)

Curmudgeon, thanks for your comments. I am, of course, aware of all the points you have made. As you would know it is difficult to get everything into a sub 1000 word piece. Also some of the points are really still conjecture.

There is certainly a body of research that suggests that variable renewables (such as wind) do not reduce emissions if you are relying on fossil fuel plants to cover for the wind lulls. The inability for Denmark to close any coal plants despite a very high penetration of wind power would tend to support this. But if we can ever get cost effective and scalable storage this will change.

You and I know that renewables are simply too costly and difficult to use to be taken seriously but unfortunately our government seems to believe they should be. I suspect they are more likely to be influenced by the increased cost argument than any hoped for reduction in emissions.

runner,

That's all right, then...if you think that cold sunny days and frigid nights with almost no rain constitutes a winter, that is your prerogative.

So because of a disastrous environmental catastrophe caused by fossil fuels you want us to replace then with something that could cause a much much worse catastrophic environmental disaster. Excuse me for not seeing the logic here.

runner
You are a fool if you think a few weeks of cold, in the middle of winter, confirms your denialist propaganda and lies.