http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2559
Chris Vernon basically argues here, after considering a paper by
Hansen, that oil and gas are so limited that climate change related
reductions in demand will have no impact, and that there is so little
oil and gas, we can easily meet a 450 PPM target and burn all oil and
gas.
The solution to climate change is therefore solely found in
substituting coal and unconventional fossil fuels, that is all that is
required is to replace coal fired power stations, while not exploiting
unconventional fossil fuels, like the oil sands.
Nuclear power advocates will love to hear that. It sounds rather
different than what the German minister of the environment has to say
about it. Gabriel argues that nuclear is only 3% of energy supply
(well, using the right definitions, using another conversion
methodology it's more like 7%), and we should focus on the other 97%.
Buying Vernon's arguments, nuclear could be a lot closer to 100% of
the solution than to 3% of the solution.
Any thoughts?
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
