If you haven't seen it, we have an interview of Hansen up in which he addresses the paper:
http://grist.org/news/maindish/2007/05/15/hansen/ ----- Q: You have a new paper that will be coming out on the implications of peak oil in the climate debate. Can you tell us a little about the conclusions of that report? A: The main point of that paper, which I think is fairly important, is that gas and oil already have enough CO2 in them to take us to approximately the dangerous level, and perhaps beyond the dangerous level. It's pretty clear we're going to use those fuels, and it's not practical to capture the CO2 in oil since it's used in mobile sources. Some of the CO2 from gas used in power plants, you could capture the CO2, but there are no plans to do that yet. That means that the only way to keep CO2 from exceeding 450 parts per million would be to say we'll have no more emissions from coal, and that would mean that we should not be building any more coal-fired plants until we have the sequestration technology. A molecule of CO2 from coal, in a certain sense, is different from one from oil or gas, because in the case of oil and gas, it doesn't matter too much when you burn it, because a good fraction of it's going to stay there 500 years anyway. If we wait to use the coal until after we have the sequestration technology, then we could prevent that contribution. I don't think that has sunk in yet to policy makers, because there are many countries going right ahead and making plans to build more coal- fired power plants. ----- On May 22, 2:20 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
