Having followed the global warming issue since the 70s I was gratified to hear nuclear recognized as an option to combat global warming by most of the interviewees, Greenpeace notwithstanding. It is obvious that we can not dump hundreds of millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the air and not expect some change. As for increased CO2 being benefical to plants, yes and no. There is a difference between the C-3 and C-4 photosynthetic pathway and I do not remember which is better served by higher CO2 concentrations. There would be a definite shift in crop yield and in the areas most suited for crop production. I remember back in the 70s that the rumor was that the CIA (under cover) was sponsoring a lot of CO2/global warming research because it was in the best long-term interest of the US to make and keep friends in those areas of the world which would benefit from warming if the Great Plains and Corn Belt dried up so that we could no longer produce enough food in the US.
Global warming will have an effect on nuclear power. Here in the Great Lake, the models predict lower lake level due to global warming. Not only will increased lake temperature decrease the effective cooling required and hence cause the need to drop the power level, the loss of ice cover during the winter increases evaporative loss and possibility of less precipitation both work to lower lake level which affects the availibility of cooling water for nukes as well as fossil plants. Those nuclear plants situated in coastal area of the world could experience flooding due to the rise in sea level. Either way, our life style needs to change. I do not remember the program suggesting zero population growth as an option to combat global warming.
(standard disclaimers apply)
Kjell Johansen
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
231 W. Michigan
Milwaukee, WI 53217
kjell.johansen@wepco.com