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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

3. There are literally hundreds of "authoritative estimates" out there GG.

Reply to GliderGuider (Reply #2)

Sat May 26, 2012, 10:38 PM

May 2012

I know you used 2008 IEA projections but that is hardly a "sanity check" since we've already established, by using their 1998 projections, that they are not an accurate source of information regarding renewables. In fact, the problem is so pronounced that a new agency has recently been created to deal specifically with the renewable energy on the same terms that IEA deals with fossil and nuclear = International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).

Oh, on the "authoritative estimates" - you can download the IPCC review and find 160 of them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112715489

You are an extreme outlier.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

21 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

CO2 Emissions from Electrical Generation: 1980 to 2030 [View all] GliderGuider May 2012 OP

How many data points between 2003-2012 did you use? kristopher May 2012 #1

Annual points from 1980 to 2010, so 30 points in all (edited) GliderGuider May 2012 #2

There are literally hundreds of "authoritative estimates" out there GG. kristopher May 2012 #3

"Outlier"? Not hardly. GliderGuider May 2012 #4

You're right. kristopher May 2012 #6

When I look at the distribution I'm reminded of a PERT analysis. GliderGuider May 2012 #10

I'd like to respond more fully a bit later today hopefully, but in the meantime kristopher May 2012 #12

How is IRENA not the same kind of industry group XemaSab May 2012 #5

Decry? kristopher May 2012 #7

Beautifully argued but you have left some things out intaglio May 2012 #8

Did you really think I was trying to justify the building of nukes??? GliderGuider May 2012 #9

At first, yes, I did think you were being supportive intaglio May 2012 #11

One thing I'd like to see is the big 3 'C's: Concrete, Clinker, and Coke. joshcryer May 2012 #13

Thanks. That's a very useful memory graphic! GliderGuider May 2012 #14

I'm trying to find a breakdown for "industry," but generally it's "those three." joshcryer May 2012 #15

EPA kristopher May 2012 #16

US only doesn't tell you the full picture. joshcryer May 2012 #17

The report that is part of has 60 pages of references. kristopher May 2012 #18

Found the kind of breakdown I want, page 85: joshcryer May 2012 #19

"Industrial" is one sector of power kristopher May 2012 #20

I looked at the EPA table, it's good, but because it's US-only... joshcryer May 2012 #21