|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:16 PM Original message |
Nuclear power sucks as an answer to climate change, energy security and air pollution |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
bananas (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:19 PM Response to Original message |
1. It sure does! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Go2Peace (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:06 AM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Al-Gore is not onboard with Nuclear...This greenwashing comes from INDUSTRY, Not ENVIRONMENTALISTS |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Sun Apr-11-10 10:30 PM Response to Original message |
2. Deleted sub-thread |
Merchant Marine (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:38 AM Response to Original message |
4. I like how 144,000 turbines are equated with 300,000 40s' vintage aircraft |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:50 AM Response to Reply #4 |
5. Yeah, the paper is rife with weird stuff like that. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:01 AM Response to Reply #5 |
13. ROFL Bandwagon effect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
FBaggins (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:28 AM Response to Reply #4 |
8. Yes... that's a constant meme here |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:45 PM Response to Reply #8 |
26. Even worse the calculations for wind is not 20 years or even 10 years but 2 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:41 PM Response to Reply #26 |
27. So you are claiming it takes 20 years to plan and build a wind farm? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:50 PM Response to Reply #27 |
29. No I am claiming it will take a long longer than 2 years to generate enough power by wind to power.. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:07 PM Response to Reply #29 |
30. Are you asserting that Jacobson made such a claim? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:11 PM Response to Reply #30 |
31. Yes D12 determines the CO2 delay impact of wind to be based on 2-5 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:59 PM Response to Reply #31 |
33. Deliberately trying to mislead people again? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 02:41 AM Response to Reply #26 |
37. His 2 year wind cite is just some guy making a claim in a web article. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dogmudgeon (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:06 AM Response to Reply #4 |
9. Interesting how Jacobson "proves" nuclear energy is high-carbon |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:36 PM Response to Reply #9 |
21. Exactly the cost of smart grid is never factored in. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:24 AM Response to Reply #4 |
11. It gets worse. The paper assumes that can be done in 2-5 years. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:00 AM Response to Reply #4 |
12. You are asserting it costs $27,000,000 to erect ONE turbine. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Merchant Marine (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:52 PM Response to Reply #12 |
17. Appeal to trivia? More like logistics... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:05 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. Deleted message |
Merchant Marine (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:31 PM Response to Reply #19 |
20. Could you please make an attempt at honest debate? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:41 PM Response to Reply #20 |
23. HA! Thats NOT going to happen |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Merchant Marine (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:42 PM Response to Reply #23 |
24. Well, I'm not going to bother insulting him. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:46 PM Response to Reply #17 |
28. ROFLMAO - Sure, continue to defend that nonsense. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Merchant Marine (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:39 PM Response to Reply #28 |
32. I asked you for some cheaper examples... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:01 PM Response to Reply #32 |
34. I gave you a number. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Merchant Marine (650 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 05:36 PM Response to Reply #34 |
35. [citation needed] |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 07:38 AM Response to Reply #35 |
41. Since he won't give you one here is one from Wind Lobby. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 02:57 AM Response to Reply #28 |
39. So you're saying that new nuclear is bound to be less costly after more are built? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nihil (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 05:36 AM Response to Reply #39 |
40. Oops ... you really should know better by now ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 03:52 AM Response to Original message |
6. FYI, if the paper concluded 60+60 lifespan for Gen III+ reactors, nuclear beats hydro. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Statistical (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 10:21 AM Response to Reply #6 |
10. Hell even if the paper took more moderate steps nuclear would score better |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:07 AM Response to Reply #10 |
14. ROFL Bandwagon Effect |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:43 PM Response to Reply #14 |
25. All of his numbers are valid and legitimately derived from a range of input values |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 02:35 AM Response to Reply #25 |
36. He just wants to bury peoples posts. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Dead_Parrot (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 04:41 AM Response to Original message |
7. ... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 11:08 AM Response to Reply #7 |
15. Sure, here you go. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Nederland (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:19 PM Response to Original message |
16. Are you aware... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
kristopher (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 12:53 PM Response to Reply #16 |
18. Are you aware... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Confusious (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Mon Apr-12-10 01:38 PM Response to Reply #18 |
22. So I suppose you believe |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
joshcryer (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Tue Apr-13-10 02:47 AM Response to Original message |
38. BTW, this is not a peer reviewed research paper. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Sun Dec 01st 2024, 03:18 PM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC