Environment & Energy

PamW

(1,825 posts)

72. Sure - I'd like the links

Tue Feb 14, 2012, 10:47 AM

Feb 2012

Sure I'd like the links to what you MISTAKENLY "think" are my "mistakes" and "falsifications"

The fact of the mattter is most of what you "think" are my mistakes are due to your own appalling lack of knowledge in science,
and the history of same.

Like recently when you challenged me to show the civillian reactor design program that paralleled the military reactor program.
You didn't think there was a purely civillian program; and you even put one of those falling down laughing smilies in your post #7:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11275859

That's when I posted a reply that demonstrated there was a civillian program. (Post #19)

So go ahead and post your links and trumpet your scientific ignorance once again.

Showing you to be a fool is like shooting fish in a barrel.

PamW

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