Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kristopher

(29,798 posts)
43. You use no data and poor reasoning to support your position
Mon Mar 4, 2013, 07:08 AM
Mar 2013

Last edited Mon Mar 4, 2013, 08:46 AM - Edit history (1)

If you wish to choose the most effective solution going forward the "whys" of where we are now are crucial; when you ignore the evolution of our sources of generation and the reasons we are where we are regarding the energy mix you cripple your understanding of what is happening.

There is no validity to a claim based on the status quo unless you can show how the circumstances that created it are still dominating the world. Since those circumstances no longer hold sway, then the current set of technologies - especially their technical characteristics and their economics - must be reevaluated from scratch. We've known for decades that a distributed renewable energy supply is technically feasible and more reliable than any centralized system can possible. We now know that it is also less expensive than any of the centralized options and faster at achieving carbon reductions than nuclear.

Chinese Companies Projected To Make Solar Panels for 42 Cents Per Watt In 2015
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112736658


Add in the safety, proliferation, social and waste issues associated with nuclear infrastructure and the decision is self evident.

It is obvious why you call for government to build nuclear - they don't need to worry about competition from renewables. No nuclear plants get built based on the economic merits of nuclear nor on public calls for deployment of nuclear - they only get built as a result of the nuclear lobby buying politicians. That's because they are a wasteful purchase compared to the alternatives and they cannot attract private capital on their merits.

(FL) State senators to utilities: Build nuclear power or risk loss of funding
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737006

Ikea to Double Renewable Energy Investment to $4 Billion by 2020 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/01/ikea-to-double-renewable-energy-investment-to-4-billion-by-2015?cmpid=SolarNL-Thursday-January24-2013

Nuclear power and the French energy transition: It’s the economics, stupid!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112734955

Is Germany abandoning wind, solar and bioenergy?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737212

Duke CEO confirms threat renewables pose to their business model
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737600
It's going to happen a lot sooner in Alaska Tempest Mar 2013 #1
It's already started. progressoid Mar 2013 #2
Where is that photo from? davidthegnome Mar 2013 #5
The license plate is yellow Bainbridge Bear Mar 2013 #9
It is Alaska Tempest Mar 2013 #32
That one is from Alaska. Siberia is also showing the effects of melting "perma"frost. progressoid Mar 2013 #15
You may have meant dipsydoodle Mar 2013 #17
Doh! progressoid Mar 2013 #19
Thanks. davidthegnome Mar 2013 #25
If they predict 2050 Mojorabbit Mar 2013 #3
Agree. wtmusic Mar 2013 #4
Glad I'll be dead Pharaoh Mar 2013 #6
I know what you mean. I've said "I'm glad I'm old" to myself about a hundred times in the past Nay Mar 2013 #50
Is there REALLY anything we can do? Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #7
yes, we can do something RILib Mar 2013 #16
Obama/Whitehouse RILib Mar 2013 #18
Gops in Congress stopped the President...eom Kolesar Mar 2013 #26
what was that again? RILib Mar 2013 #45
Mr Obtuse just started researching the issue yesterday...eom Kolesar Mar 2013 #47
You made one minor error Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #27
Do you have anything except your opinion to support that? kristopher Mar 2013 #29
I do actually Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #33
So the answer is no, you have nothing to support your belief. kristopher Mar 2013 #35
Renewables are below 5%, so clearly these experts are wrong Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #37
You use no data and poor reasoning to support your position kristopher Mar 2013 #43
When we're grabbing for nuclear-- Who is 'We'? cprise Mar 2013 #36
I believe I said in my original post (on this topic) Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #38
So you think the US govt should own and operate Iran's power plants? n/t cprise Mar 2013 #57
I was talking about America. Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #58
Government can't do it any better kristopher Mar 2013 #60
Yeah, you are probably correct about that (cont) Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #61
That means your definition of "safe" is flawed. kristopher Mar 2013 #62
Clearly. n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #63
There are nuclear power plants under construction now that will never be finished. AtheistCrusader Mar 2013 #51
One assessment says that if we built a nuclear plant every week wtmusic Mar 2013 #39
So build two a week :) Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #40
That could be done, too. wtmusic Mar 2013 #41
Renewables are faster, safer and cheaper kristopher Mar 2013 #44
1700 1GWe reactors only equals 1/3 of global electric supply kristopher Mar 2013 #46
Thank you. Excellent post. Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #48
No one seriously uses LWRs in these scenerios. joshcryer Mar 2013 #56
What source can you point to that validates your statement regarding the need for nuclear? kristopher Mar 2013 #31
See my post above yours n/t Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #34
Yes, there are things we COULD do, but our political-economic system will probably prevent action DLnyc Mar 2013 #21
Setting all that aside... Demo_Chris Mar 2013 #28
You aren't paying attention... kristopher Mar 2013 #30
But Janitor Jesus will return to clean up our mess and make a paradise Motown_Johnny Mar 2013 #8
and that is why they do nothing sadly glinda Mar 2013 #11
I'll likely be gone by then, but my boyfriend will be in the prime of his life MNBrewer Mar 2013 #10
I know what you mean. I will most likely be gone by then but I am worried about the grandkids. southernyankeebelle Mar 2013 #14
Like an SF novel, minus the entertainment. nt caseymoz Mar 2013 #12
k&r nt limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #13
2050? XemaSab Mar 2013 #20
The IPCC made some predictions in 1990 that were early wtmusic Mar 2013 #22
Uh . . . . hatrack Mar 2013 #49
Referring to global temperature. wtmusic Mar 2013 #52
I'm not referring to global temperature averages, or to IPCC's past perceived failures hatrack Mar 2013 #53
Thanks. joshcryer Mar 2013 #55
That is one bloody scary graph... truebrit71 Mar 2013 #59
Is your thinking then... davidthegnome Mar 2013 #23
It's ALWAYS XemaSab Mar 2013 #24
+1000! FirstLight Mar 2013 #42
+1 joshcryer Mar 2013 #54
The Permafrost Gun is Already smoking, ... CRH Mar 2013 #64
+1 kristopher Mar 2013 #65
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»The permafrost gun is pre...»Reply #43