Environment & Energy

FogerRox

(13,211 posts)

23. DO I have it right, IIRC

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 09:40 PM

Nov 2013

the NAS says we can get 20% from renewables without gridwork and or storage....

After that the more gridwork (HVDC?) and storage deployed, the more renewables can be deployed, eventually reaching 100% from renewablles.

I lost the bookmarked link to the NAS paper, shame on me. But shame on PamW for dragging out that dead carcass, again and again.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

46 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Answer to Climate Change Is Renewable Energy, Not Nuclear Power [View all] kristopher Nov 2013 OP

SCIENCE says you are WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #1

Please provide links to your statistics. Common sense says that you are wrong. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #5

BALONEY!!! PamW Nov 2013 #7

Do you trust the World Nuclear Association on design life? caraher Nov 2013 #8

WRONG!!! PamW Nov 2013 #11

It isn't ambiguous: "...designed for 30 or 40-year operating lives" kristopher Nov 2013 #32

Vessel lifetime PamW Nov 2013 #33

Your "WRONG" was wrong kristopher Nov 2013 #34

NOT in the SLIGHTEST!!! PamW Dec 2013 #42

Right, you aren't slightly wrong you are completely and demonstrably wrong. kristopher Dec 2013 #43

Proof by assertion again..???? PamW Dec 2013 #44

I like your third person use of "the progressives" caraher Dec 2013 #46

Wow! I was hoping to have a nice discussion but you went nuclear. rhett o rick Nov 2013 #15

Well, it's true.. PamW Nov 2013 #21

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/112756356 kristopher Nov 2013 #9

SCIENCE says that? Really? ljm2002 Nov 2013 #10

BALONEY!!! PamW Nov 2013 #12

Oh dear... ljm2002 Nov 2013 #13

Another "environmentalist" that doesn't understand the NAS PamW Nov 2013 #14

I can't help it... ljm2002 Nov 2013 #17

The above DELUSIONS are all in your head... PamW Nov 2013 #18

Nuclear Power is the right thing to do. PamW Nov 2013 #28

Nuclear and coal with CCS are poor choices to address climate change kristopher Nov 2013 #36

YAWN!!! Jacobsen again; and not even fresh; old 2009 "vintage"... PamW Dec 2013 #45

Don't buy the false claim about the NAS kristopher Nov 2013 #16

Kristopher is so familiar with the study... PamW Nov 2013 #19

OK, you redeemed yourself a bit with this: GliderGuider Nov 2013 #20

Only the CENSORED version from kristopher PamW Nov 2013 #22

DO I have it right, IIRC FogerRox Nov 2013 #23

It has to do with the stability of the grid PamW Nov 2013 #25

What do the National Academies of Science and Engineering say about our energy future? kristopher Nov 2013 #30

We can alway count on kristopher... PamW Nov 2013 #31

LOGIC says you are wrong (and so are the nuclear evangelists) GliderGuider Nov 2013 #2

That should be "Invalid logic" in your title kristopher Nov 2013 #3

I don't argue with evangelists any more. I just point out that there is no God... GliderGuider Nov 2013 #4

and that our species can't even come close to substituting for Him MisterP Nov 2013 #29

No Nukes colsohlibgal Nov 2013 #6

Yeah. Apparently. That's why we've had cheering for this rich boy's fantasy for 60 years... NNadir Nov 2013 #24

Well, many countries are pressing ahead with alternative energy sources claras Nov 2013 #26

China isn't a great example FBaggins Nov 2013 #27

The Answer to Climate Change Is Neither Renewable Energy, Nor Nuclear Power GliderGuider Nov 2013 #35

Also over the past decade renewables began to achieve grid parity kristopher Nov 2013 #37

The picture isn't much better when "energy" is restricted to electricity GliderGuider Nov 2013 #38

Judging by that off point answer you don't seem to know what primary energy is kristopher Nov 2013 #39

That's why the last one wasn't in terms of primary energy, but electricity. GliderGuider Nov 2013 #40

And you still ignore the main point raised against your OP kristopher Nov 2013 #41