Don Libby wrote:
>
> The emissions scenarios in the TAR agree on a consensus of sorts:
> stabilization by 2100 cannot be achieved without at least six times more
> nuclear power plants than exist today. That seems to me to be more than "a
> small part" of the answer, although I quite agree that it is not the whole
> answer: it is a necessary but not sufficient condition for stabilization.
While I'm not saying the conclusion is necessarily wrong, note the SRES
did not attempt to consider stabilisation scenarios, or indeed any
direct CO2 mitigation effort at all (IMO a very disappointing decision
which I hope they overturn for the next set of scenarios). So deliberate
efforts to curb demand growth and promote renewables might achieve
more than is suggested in the scenarios.
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
