The *official* complain about XemaSab thread

[kristopher]

29. Sure they've included nuclear in many of their studies.

Looking at your quoted passage it is evident that it predates both Fukushima and, more importantly, the economic failures of new build nuclear in Finland and Flamanville.

The forecasts for nuclear as a meaningful global contributor to the battle against AGW is that it will decline as a percentage of energy consumption.

And while the new nuclear sounds good, it is difficult to imagine it being able to compete against the probable costs of wind and solar in 2030 and the grip they will have of grid design by then. So it too seems set be a minor player rather than a game changing technology, the progression of which we should be riveted on.

What I was referring to with my earlier comment is the fact that in conversations about moving away from coal the primary case made for nuclear by nuclear proponents revolves around their claim that the scenarios in the OP are not possible. Once that claim is admitted to be false, then the case for nuclear power development simply vanishes - which is the conclusion that virtually all independent non-carbon energy analysts arrived at some time ago. You know how long it takes to arrive at a paper like the OP; papers like this from bodies like that are usually trailing indicators, by their nature they cannot be cutting edge.

But you are absolutely correct, the IPCC also looks at carbon capture and nuclear and in some of their forecast papers those are simply included as a defacto significant part of the solution.