Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

48. Check the titles to the charts

Reply to progressoid (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 13, 2016, 05:50 PM

Jan 2016

Electricity vs Final Energy Consumption

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

53 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Joe Romm: Why James Hansen Is Wrong About Nuclear Power [View all] kristopher Jan 2016 OP

I really appreciate this article. Gregorian Jan 2016 #1

Happy it helps. kristopher Jan 2016 #5

Nuclear is not going to 'solve it's nagging problems' bloom Jan 2016 #2

So much mental horsepower being wasted on the wrong problem. GliderGuider Jan 2016 #3

As if you'd know what the right problems are... kristopher Jan 2016 #4

Bless the witless minions of the so-called "natural" gas industry. hunter Jan 2016 #6

Yep, a baseload system around nuclear would lock in heavy natgas consumption kristopher Jan 2016 #7

Fuck this shit: hunter Jan 2016 #22

The world is what it is kristopher Jan 2016 #23

I'm not a "self loathing human..." hunter Jan 2016 #26

You may be right... kristopher Jan 2016 #27

What is it about this consumer economy you can't do without? hunter Jan 2016 #28

Any time there is trade there is a "consumer economy". kristopher Jan 2016 #33

Then we pass like every other "innovative" exponentially growing population that has gone before us. hunter Jan 2016 #34

"Special"? kristopher Jan 2016 #35

Biology. It's been around a long time. hunter Jan 2016 #36

That's your core argument? kristopher Jan 2016 #39

Is that all you got? hunter Jan 2016 #40

When you keep rephrasing the same point... kristopher Jan 2016 #42

KerTWANG! Nihil Jan 2016 #46

I believe the chief problem is one of perceived absolutes OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #8

Yes, I've heard your 'belief' on this before, and you still kristopher Jan 2016 #9

Romm’s stance appears to be similar to mine OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #10

No it isn't. kristopher Jan 2016 #11

Then you misrepresent my stance OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #12

Your stance is clearly stated in the thread linked above kristopher Jan 2016 #13

A clearer statement from Romm OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #14

Not true. You are reading very selectively (again). kristopher Jan 2016 #15

You must be mistaking me with a straw man OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #16

That isn't relevant to the topic. kristopher Jan 2016 #17

You claim I “have been an unambiguous promoter of nuclear power for years.” OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #18

It's a flat fact. kristopher Jan 2016 #19

Then prove it or apologize OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #20

Riiiiight... kristopher Jan 2016 #21

The long list of links given says its not (nt) LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #52

Joe Romm is yet another arsonist complaining about forest fires. NNadir Jan 2016 #24

Riiiight.... " Regulators question CO2 plan for $19.3 billion Virginia nuclear reactor" kristopher Jan 2016 #25

As some kind of Luddite I disagree with you about many things... hunter Jan 2016 #29

The implication being that he is the true environmentalist cprise Jan 2016 #31

? hunter Jan 2016 #32

Here in this forum, about a decade ago... cprise Jan 2016 #30

Since, at 440 reactors nuclear only supplied about 2% of global final energy supply... kristopher Jan 2016 #37

2% ? progressoid Jan 2016 #47

Check the titles to the charts kristopher Jan 2016 #48

I get that. But who made that chart? progressoid Jan 2016 #49

Perhaps that's the question you should have asked then. kristopher Jan 2016 #50

Essentially, they look at opposite ends of this type of chart kristopher Jan 2016 #51

Has anyone produced an updated (e.g., 2015) version of that 2010 diagram yet? Nihil Jan 2016 #53

No. We can choose a high energy industrial society or not. hunter Jan 2016 #38

There you go again with meaningless metrics kristopher Jan 2016 #41

I've maybe slept with, but not quite fucked, some of your heroes. hunter Jan 2016 #43

I have no idea what you are talking about. kristopher Jan 2016 #44

Lucky you. It was just a dream. hunter Jan 2016 #45