Environment & Energy

PamW

(1,825 posts)

42. NOT in the SLIGHTEST!!!

Tue Dec 3, 2013, 05:34 PM

Dec 2013

kristopher,

When are you going to learn that things like "design lifetimes" are set by SCIENTISTS and ENGINEERS.

The World Nuclear Association is the PR organization; the "cheerleaders".

Who is it that determines how often the oil needs to be changed on your car? It's the design of the car and how it affects
the oil that determines how long one can go before the oil needs to be replaced.

Who decides what the design of the car it, and hence the longevity of the oil?

It's the ENGINEERS that designed the car.

You're telling me that the lifetime of the oil specified by the ENGINEERS that designed the car
is to be ignored in favor of the people on Madison Avenue in New York who wrote the commercial.

It would really behoove you to learn at least a LITTLE about science and engineering.

PamW

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