From: Don Libby
[am] You and James Lovelock may be willing to have a waste dump in your back yard, but I doubt your neighbours will agree.  Moreover we need more than two people willing to have nuclear waste dumps if we are going to replace all fossil fuel generation with nuclear.


[dl] We need about 40 people and their neighbors willing to have them in their back yard, world wide, to accommodate a scenario A1T sized nuclear fleet with Yucca Mountain sized HLW repositories.  OTOH we will only need about 24 under the least-nuclear-intensive scenario B1, but that is not a stabilization scenario.  Even under the most wishful "Helen Caldicott" scenario, we'll need more than a few, but that is not a stabilization scenario either.
 
Whoops.  B1 actually is a stabilization scenario, B2 is not.  B1 calls for a 6-fold increase in nuclear power plants to achieve stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations by 2100.  Apparently, the authors of the SRES scenarios do not believe that stabilization can be achieved with less than a 6-fold increase in the number of nuclear power plants world wide.  Increasing the number of npp by a factor of 6 or more world wide is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for stabilization.
 
To stabilize or not to stabilize?
 
-dl

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.

Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.

To post to this group, send email to [email protected]

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to