date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 16:37:54 +0200 from: "Stephan Singer" subject: RE: ECF position paper to: ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , dear all, as much as i do agree that all possibilities to render dangerous nuclear waste into less dangerous one should be explored, it is by no means acceptable that limited funds to generate support for climate-friendly measures to cut GHG be used for nuclear research. utilities earned a fortune with that dirty technology in the past - and most are still subsidised. therefore they shall pay for its save removal incl. the waste. climate research within the framework of the ecf is something completely different. best regards stephan singer wwf international >>> Joachim Gretz 08/21/01 03:48pm >>> Dear Prof. Hasselmann, ref. your reply on the nuclear issue: In order not to perturb unecessarily NGOs and other sensitive elements , the nuclear issue could be tackled from the nuclear waste side, waste accumulated during the past decades and which is a major concern - if not THE major concern - of the use of nuclear energy. Somehow or other this waste has to be disposed of. Project Proposal:" Transmutation of nuclear waste, i.e. nuclear incineration, is the conversion of long lived radioactive waste from nuclear reactors into short lived and stable elements in undercritcal nuclear devices, producing 'no-CO2' energy as a by-product. Transmutation does not point towards future use of nuclear energy but is to handle the radioactive waste from the operation of nuclear reactors during the last half-century." Best regards Joachm Gretz At 21.48 20/08/01 +0200, Klaus Hasselmann wrote: >Dear Dr. Gretz: >All good and valid points, I shall try to incorporate them in my next >attempt at a draft position paper. It is clear that we shall have to find >some diplomatic yet precise wording to bring in the nuclear issue without >upsetting the NGOs, but I agree, as I said before, that we can sweep this >discussion under the carpet. >With best regards >Klaus Hasselmann > >At 17:21 20.08.2001 +0200, Joachim Gretz wrote: > >>Dear Prof. Hasselmann, >> >>ref. your proposed structure of a ECF Position Paper I would have the >>following comments: >> >> - item 3 of your 'Summary of status of...': Whilst I fully agree that the >>long term challenge is to draw ghg emissions to essentially zero within >>this century, the term 'unacceptable' in that context is misleading since >>it represents an appreciation, whereas it is a goal; it may turn out that >>ghg emissions will not become zero by 2000, acceptable or not. >> Stating that zero emissions cannot be achieved by sinks, more efficient >>energy use, etc. implies that it can be achieved with other means. Which >>ones ? All means are listed up, except nuclear, which has no place in the >>Kyoto countermeasures. On nuclear see the following item. >> - item 4: Even if solar energy may become the ultimate, ultimate energy >>source in a sustainable energy system, nuclear energy should not be >>excluded in the enumeration of 'no CO2' technologies. Whether one likes it >>or not, there are today worldwide 46 nuclear power plants under >>construction or ordered, Russia plans to have another 30 by 2020, the Blair >>Government - not to talk about Bush - does not exclude a nuclear come-back >>on the grounds that things won't work out without. Just to say that one >>should not exclude nuclear ex cathedra just because it is presently >>politically under ban in Europe. And then there is the transmutation >>technology under examination, the technology to reduce the half live of >>radioactive waste with nuclear processes. >>As for fusion, works are under way on the Helium 3- alpha particle direct >>electricity conversion - rather than the D-T -steam cycle system. There is >>a chance, that it can be realized in 50 years from now. >>On CO2 mitigation: Critical energy balances of direct and indirect energy >>input should be undertaken in order to judge the mitigation effectiveness. >>In my proposal on the Storage of CO2 in deep Marine Sediments for instance >>(sent to Ola Johannesson and M. Welp last week), first hand calculations >>indicate an efficiency of 30 %. It may very well be that a more thorough >>calculation leads to, say, 25 %. Is that sufficient ? And how about cost >>effectiveness ? >>On methane: I read the other day about methane contributing to some 20 % to >>the total ghg forcing. I cannot judge this figure, but if methane does not >>yet figure in our research fields, should it not be taken up ? >> >>With best regards >> >>Joachim Gretz >> >> >> >> >Dear all, >> > >> >Hereby some reactions to the sketch of the discussion paper. >> > >> >First, the emission reduction targets and their timing are a matter of >> >discussion, the outcome of which depends, among others, on the costs of >> >emission reduction, the costs of adaptation, the impacts of climate change >> >after adaptation, and the acceptability and distribution of costs and >> >impacts. We cannot now say that the target is X at time T. We can only say, >> >with great uncertainty, if the eventual aim is such, emission reduction >> >should be about so. We should not pretend, however, that we agree on the >> >eventual aims. >> > >> >Second, Kyoto is very important, not because of the emission reduction it >> >will or will not achieve, but because Kyoto sets the stage. Some people like >> >the Kyoto Protocol, others think it is counterproductive and, if not soon >> >abandoned, will prevent emission reduction for the next 25 years. >> > >> >All the best >> > >> >Richard >> > >> > >> >Prof. Dr. Richard S.J. Tol >> >Hamburg, Vrije and Carnegie Mellon Universities >> >ZMK, Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany >> >+49 40 428387007/8 (voice) +49 40 428387009 (fax) tol@dkrz.de >> >http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/tol.html >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Klaus Hasselmann [mailto:klaus.hasselmann@dkrz.de] >> >> Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2001 2:25 PM >> >> To: Carlo.Jaeger@pik-potsdam.de; Martin Welp; >> >> schellnhuber@pik-potsdam.de; Ottmar.Edenhofer@pik-potsdam.de; >> >> tol@dkrz.de; ccarraro@helios.unive.it; ccarraro@unive.it; >> >> juergen.engelhard@rheinbraun.de; baldur.eliasson@ch.abb.com; >> >> hourcade@msh-paris.fr; ola.johannessen@nrsc.no; gretz@mail1.tread.net; >> >> bill.hare@ams.greenpeace.org; SSinger@wwfepo.org; guentherr@wwf.de; >> >> gberz@munichre.com; m.hulme@uea.ac.uk >> >> Subject: ECF position paper >> >> >> >> >> >> Dear colleague: >> >> >> >> I was requested on the 6.August telephone conference by the ECF skeleton >> >> board and the members of the former ECF steering committe to >> >> coordinate the >> >> writing of an ECF position paper, as agreed upon at the ECF meeting in >> >> Brussels on July 12. >> >> It was proposed that we complete the position paper and present it to the >> >> press about a week in advance of the Marrakech COP 7 meeting in November >> >> this year. >> >> >> >> I suggest the following timetable: >> >> >> >> 1) preliminary agreement on the structure and contents of the >> >> paper by the >> >> end of this month, >> >> 2) production of first draft in September, >> >> 3) detailed discussion of first draft on 2nd October in Potsdam (an >> >> additional day ahead of the 3-4.October ECF meeting, which was >> >> proposed on >> >> 6.August to discuss the details of the various projects agreed >> >> upon at the >> >> Brussels meeting) >> >> 4) completion of the paper in October. >> >> 5) November: presentation of the paper >> >> >> >> I would hope that apart from the 2nd October meeting we can achieve our >> >> task by e-mail. But a meeting may be necessary in September. If so, we >> >> should try to combine it with one of the other project meetings that will >> >> be taking place in September. >> >> >> >> Everybody is invited to participate. Please feel free to copy >> >> this mail to >> >> other ECF members or potential members who I may have missed. >> >> >> >> It has been suggested that the position paper should be short, about 5 >> >> pages, plus some appendices if necessary.To get the discussion going, I >> >> propose the attached structure as straw man. Please note that >> >> many of the >> >> points I have listed are my own views, and I will by happy to - >> >> and expect >> >> to - modify them based on your responses. >> >> >> >> With best regards >> >> Klaus >> >> >> > > >Prof. Dr. Klaus Hasselmann >work: Max Planck Institute of Meteorology, >Bundestrasse 55, D21046 Hamburg, Germany >Tel. (+49) (0)40-41173-237 Fax. (+49) (0)40-41173-250 >home: Schulstr. 79, D 25368 Kiebitzreihe >Tel. (+49) (0)4121-508849, Fax. (+49) (0)4121-508850 >e-mail: klaus.hasselmann@dkrz.de >