Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

60. The argument has no data to support it. See post 58

Reply to FBaggins (Reply #50)

Fri Feb 10, 2012, 04:13 PM

Feb 2012

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):

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Ontario's power glut means possible nuclear plant shutdowns [View all] kristopher Feb 2012 OP

They talk like this is a problem Demeter Feb 2012 #1

"...step in to prop them up with artificially high prices on the electricity they produce." Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #2

The price for electricity from renewable generation are declining kristopher Feb 2012 #3

So, you're still not addressing the actual energy produced, then? Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #4

FUZZY MATH!!! PamW Feb 2012 #5

If nuclear bad is so bad, why do its opponents need to engage in this type of activity?? FBaggins Feb 2012 #6

So you are claiming that civilian nuclear reactors are not based on military research? kristopher Feb 2012 #7

Does a civilian reactor, or a military material prep reactor crank out a completed W88 warhead pit? AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #8

Your desperation is showing kristopher Feb 2012 #9

That is a more reasonable statement. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #10

Military spending was not included in the 1% kristopher Feb 2012 #12

That is quite a lot more budget than I would have guessed. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #15

Price-Anderson again PamW Feb 2012 #23

Interesting analogy Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #11

Gingrich is going to build us a moonbase XemaSab Feb 2012 #17

AND HYDROGEN HYPERCARS FOR ALL! Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #24

WRONG WRONG WRONG!!! PamW Feb 2012 #22

Do you know where nuclear weapons "pits" came from? PamW Feb 2012 #20

Yes, I'm aware of this. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #21

WRONG Location!! PamW Feb 2012 #30

Not wrong. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #31

You said Pantex was in Paducah PamW Feb 2012 #32

Yes, I'm sure the Department of Energy doesn't know where the fuck this plant is. AtheistCrusader Feb 2012 #33

The only disagreement.... PamW Feb 2012 #34

It is irrelevant since your assertion of fact in post #5 was, yet again, false. kristopher Feb 2012 #38

BALONEY!!!! PamW Feb 2012 #39

Your reasoning is faulty and self serving kristopher Feb 2012 #41

More nonsense of course. FBaggins Feb 2012 #42

What competitive advantage does the liability cap give over alternative distribution systems? kristopher Feb 2012 #43

None to speak of FBaggins Feb 2012 #44

That was the answer - your trucking example isn't an accurate parallel kristopher Feb 2012 #45

The accident was your fault... not the hazmat truck. FBaggins Feb 2012 #47

It is still the same thing - "competitive advantage" kristopher Feb 2012 #49

None. FBaggins Feb 2012 #51

That isn't accurate - "avoided costs" kristopher Feb 2012 #52

In order to be an "avoided" cost it first must be a cost that would otherwise be paid. FBaggins Feb 2012 #56

If your statement is true then why does the nuclear industry LOVE the Price Anderson Act? kristopher Feb 2012 #58

Next question (while you're dodging the first one). FBaggins Feb 2012 #46

Why don't you just lay out the information you think is relevant kristopher Feb 2012 #48

The argument was made clearly... your avoidance is equally clear. FBaggins Feb 2012 #50

In other words you have no data, just your usual hyperbole. kristopher Feb 2012 #53

Still avoiding? Very well... next question. FBaggins Feb 2012 #57

Externalized costs are not the same as a subsidy kristopher Feb 2012 #59

Renewables have to be subsidized... PamW Feb 2012 #63

Costs for renewables are declining, costs for nuclear are rising. kristopher Feb 2012 #64

The argument has no data to support it. See post 58 kristopher Feb 2012 #60

At least nuclear power has the Brookhaven study... PamW Feb 2012 #62

Glad you brought that up kristopher Feb 2012 #65

Fuzzy math again PamW Feb 2012 #66

Nope kristopher Feb 2012 #67

I've told you before.. PamW Feb 2012 #68

I don't care what you accept. kristopher Feb 2012 #69

Then you will never convince me. PamW Feb 2012 #70

Pam you make things up out of whole cloth and... kristopher Feb 2012 #71

Sure - I'd like the links PamW Feb 2012 #72

GLADLY!!! PamW Feb 2012 #19

Continuing... PamW Feb 2012 #35

All of the replies to the OP are totally off point kristopher Feb 2012 #13

Or, that too much renewable energy without storage will fuck your grid Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #14

Not the same thing at all. kristopher Feb 2012 #16

. XemaSab Feb 2012 #18

S'alright Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #25

Perhaps the beer is why you don't grasp why you're wrong about the nature of the issue. kristopher Feb 2012 #26

Yes, they are. Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #27

The renewables produce what they produce kristopher Feb 2012 #28

Yes kris, they do produce what they produce... Dead_Parrot Feb 2012 #29

The nuclear plants have to shut down because they can't sell their electricity kristopher Feb 2012 #36

Post removed Post removed Feb 2012 #37

That's a bunch of smelly bovine byproducts... and you well know it. FBaggins Feb 2012 #40

So you are objecting to the paper using "shut down" instead of "shut off"? kristopher Feb 2012 #54

??? Pretty wild spin there. FBaggins Feb 2012 #55

Wind always sells their output kristopher Feb 2012 #61

kick kristopher Feb 2012 #73