Environment & Energy

PamW

(1,825 posts)

22. Only the CENSORED version from kristopher

Tue Nov 26, 2013, 06:19 PM

Nov 2013

kristopher states
The "America's Energy Future" series of publications were put out between 2008-2010. None were from 2004.

The National Academy of Sciences has been studying and making recommendations on energy policy for longer than kristopher would have one believe.

From the above, kristopher would have one believe that the National Academy of Sciences first "discovered" the issue of energy policy in 2008, and had no studies on the subject in 2004.

This is kristopher's CENSORED version of the history of National Academy of Science studies in energy policy. For example, he evidently doesn't know about:

Coal: Energy for the Future(1995)

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=4918

The National Academy of Science has done LOTS of studies that kristopher isn't aware of.

If you want to know more about what the National Academy of Science has done; ask a scientist, like me.

The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson

PamW

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

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