> Given those boundary assumptions, the substitution of
> nuclear power for coal power is a key stabilizing factor.
I've seen anti-nuclear activists argue that nuclear energy can only
ever be a small part of the solution noting that only 6% of world
energy is supplied by nuclear power plants.
A different way of looking at the issue is by noting that
stabilisation at 450 PPM is entirely feasible, if all remaing
conventional natural gas and oil are burnt, but even 900 PPM can be
easily reached by burning coal (and unconventional hydrocarbons like
the oil sands in Canada).
Therefore, in a sense if coal is replaced by nuclear for electricity,
restricting ourselves to using only conventional oil and gas will be
the entirety of the solution.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
